From: mycoboco@hanmail.net (Jun Woong) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: 30 Sep 2001 00:08:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 65 Message-ID: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211.117.39.85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1001833703 5188 127.0.0.1 (30 Sep 2001 07:08:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 2001 07:08:23 GMT These are minor editorial questions that are not irrelative to the technical content of the Standard, however I don't think they are never relevant to the Standard. #1 the order of annexes ISO/IEC Directive, part 3 used in drafting C99 requires that the order of annexes is same as the order in which they are referred to in the text of the Standard. But, C99 seems not to follow the requirement. #2 distinction between "can" and "may" According to the part 3 of the Directive, there is the obvious difference between the meanings of "can" and "may". Does C99 make the distinction clearly? From the definition of "bit", for example, ] unit of data storage in the execution environment large enough to ] hold an object that may have one of two values ^^^ Is it better to use "can" instead of "may" above? #3 a full-stop after the clause number C99 has a full-stop after every clause number. That is, "1. Scope" Is this allowed by ISO/IEC? The Directive, part 3 seems to require the subject of the clause to follow the clause number immediately (e.g., "1 Scope"). #4 the representation of values 1) decimal point ISO/IEC Directive, part 3 requires the decimal point to be a comma regardless of the language in which a standard is written. But C99 uses the period for the decimal point. Is this allowed? 2) space separating the group of digits ISO/IEC Directive, part 3 requries a space separation among groups of three digits. For example, 123 456.123 456 7 But C99 does not represent numbers in this way. Is this allowed? Of course, I know that the use of , for the decimal point and the space separation are improper in describing one of computer programming languages. But what I'd like to know is how the committee get around this conflict? (by permission of ISO/IEC?) Thanks in advance... -- Jun Woong (mycoboco@hanmail.net) Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Seoul Message-ID: <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 4 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 04:59:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.1.216.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.md.home.com 1001912381 65.1.216.129 (Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:59:41 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:59:41 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Jun Woong wrote: > ... Is this allowed? Yes, obviously. Please go away. Newsgroups: comp.std.c From: Jun Woong References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Lines: 25 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 03:40:38 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:40:38 GMT In article <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net>, Douglas A. Gwyn says... > >Jun Woong wrote: >> ... Is this allowed? > >Yes, obviously. Please go away. If my question is off-topic (of course, I don't believe so), just say so and let me know it. If you are not interested in this question, I'm afraid that ignoring is better than the insincere. If you meant to answer my question, please read it all; what I want to know is the reason, not yes or no. Thanks. p.s. Why don't you answer my "string returned by library" question? Do you make up your mind to leave it as a mystery? It's very hard to understand except for you who wrote it. -- Jun Woong (mycoboco@hanmail.net) Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Seoul Newsgroups: comp.std.c From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions X-Nntp-Posting-Host: swctd.arl.army.mil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> Sender: news@arl.army.mil (News Administration ) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: U.S. Army Research Laboratory X-Accept-Language: en References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:25:46 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.8 sun4u) Lines: 28 Jun Woong wrote: > In article <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net>, Douglas A. Gwyn says... > >Jun Woong wrote: > >> ... Is this allowed? > >Yes, obviously. Please go away. > If my question is off-topic (of course, I don't believe so), just say > so and let me know it. If you are not interested in this question, I'm > afraid that ignoring is better than the insincere. If you meant to > answer my question, please read it all; what I want to know is the > reason, not yes or no. It was a sincere answer! You seem to be trying to cause trouble, not to understand. The C standard was approved at every required ISO level, so obviously it is allowed to be the way it is. Our document editor checked what was required and what was allowed as he needed to in the course of editing the (draft) standard. > p.s. Why don't you answer my "string returned by library" question? > Do you make up your mind to leave it as a mystery? It's very > hard to understand except for you who wrote it. It's not a mystery at all. The (non-wide) string functions simply do *not* deal with multibyte sequences; the mystery is why you think they would. Those functions deal only with null-terminated sequences of bytes, as is clearly documented in the standard. There is no requirement that any of those functions be applied only to byte sequences that can be interpreted as multibyte encodings of characters. Newsgroups: comp.std.c From: Jun Woong References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Lines: 70 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 12:36:01 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:36:01 GMT In article <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net>, Douglas A. Gwyn says... > >Jun Woong wrote: >> In article <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net>, Douglas A. Gwyn says... >> >Jun Woong wrote: >> >> ... Is this allowed? >> >Yes, obviously. Please go away. >> If my question is off-topic (of course, I don't believe so), just say >> so and let me know it. If you are not interested in this question, I'm >> afraid that ignoring is better than the insincere. If you meant to >> answer my question, please read it all; what I want to know is the >> reason, not yes or no. > >It was a sincere answer! Okay, but it was an answer that just repeated one of my questions, so it could hardly help understanding of the situation. >You seem to be trying to cause trouble, >not to understand. No, I was trying to understand it. It's not a false charge. Only problem in this discussion is the fact that you are misunderstanding the intention of my question. >The C standard was approved at every required >ISO level, Of course, I know it. These days I'm studying all documents of the committee available to the public. My questions are from them. >so obviously it is allowed to be the way it is. I'm afraid that you need to read my questions more carefully. What I'd like to know is how can it is allowed concretely. In other words, "does the ISO/IEC's drafting system have a way to allow them, even if the official ISO/IEC Directives part 3 seems not to allow them? If so, could anyone tell me what it is even roughly?" >Our >document editor checked what was required and what was allowed as >he needed to in the course of editing the (draft) standard. Frankly speaking, the reason I posted the questions here is that I know some people in this group are/were doing the editorial stuff and that I believe they can answer them. > >> p.s. Why don't you answer my "string returned by library" question? >> Do you make up your mind to leave it as a mystery? It's very >> hard to understand except for you who wrote it. > >It's not a mystery at all. The (non-wide) string functions simply >do *not* deal with multibyte sequences; Then, why does only the wording for the string returned by localeconv() have the requirement? Does the Standard say that the function deals with wide string? AFAIK, no. >the mystery is why you >think they would. My mystery is the above, and I expressed it in detail in other branch of that thread. -- Jun Woong (mycoboco@hanmail.net) Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Seoul Newsgroups: comp.std.c From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions X-Nntp-Posting-Host: swctd.arl.army.mil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <3BB8C3D3.C8BDDF45@null.net> Sender: news@arl.army.mil (News Administration ) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: U.S. Army Research Laboratory X-Accept-Language: en References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:28:19 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.8 sun4u) Lines: 49 > In article <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net>, Douglas A. Gwyn says... > >so obviously it is allowed to be the way it is. Jun Woong wrote: > I'm afraid that you need to read my questions more carefully. What I'd > like to know is how can it is allowed concretely. In other words, > "does the ISO/IEC's drafting system have a way to allow them, even if > the official ISO/IEC Directives part 3 seems not to allow them? > If so, could anyone tell me what it is even roughly?" You seem to have a flawed model of the process. What actually happens is that a bunch of people who have already gained ISO recognition as an appropriate working group request and get ISO authorization to work on a document, then after the working group produces the document, various ISO procedures are used to (possibly) approve the document as an official standard. So long as the process completes, what the "official" directives are is moot. It is only because not adhering to the published guidelines *might* significantly delay the process, due to withholding approval at some stage, that they matter at all. The extent to which the *generic* ISO formatting "directives" are enforced during this process depends on many variables, including whether a directive would interfere with the clarity or convenience of the standard. For example, the actual C language does *not* allow embedded spaces in the representations of numerical constants, so it would be confusing to insert them in the document describing the C language. Cases like that are so clear that no particular approval is needed for them. For some directives, the project editor specifically inquires about a waiver, which is usually granted when there is good reason. > Then, why does only the wording for the string returned by > localeconv() have the requirement? Does the Standard say that the > function deals with wide string? AFAIK, no. Wide strings have nothing to do with this. The initial shift-state requirement is intentional, because we want the strings returned via the struct lconv to be *useful* in certain ways that elsewhere in the standard require that they be such self-contained pieces. These strings *belong* to the *implementation*, so it is in a position to ensure that they are appropriate for such use. Most *other* functions that deal with strings have to handle whatever the *program* gives them, and their functionality is such that they do not interpret the byte sequences of the strings (other than to find the null terminator). An exception occurs for the fprintf/fscanf format string, and those specifications have their own special wording to ensure that the strings make sense in that context. From: "James Russell Kuyper Jr." Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:08:11 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> <3BB8C3D3.C8BDDF45@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 31 "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote: > > > In article <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net>, Douglas A. Gwyn says... > > >so obviously it is allowed to be the way it is. > Jun Woong wrote: ... > You seem to have a flawed model of the process. What actually > happens is that a bunch of people who have already gained ISO > recognition as an appropriate working group request and get ISO > authorization to work on a document, then after the working > group produces the document, various ISO procedures are used to > (possibly) approve the document as an official standard. So long > as the process completes, what the "official" directives are is > moot. It is only because not adhering to the published > guidelines *might* significantly delay the process, due to > withholding approval at some stage, that they matter at all. So, you're saying that the only reason that those directives should be obeyed, is because there's a chance they'll be enforced, and once you've gotten past the point where it might be enforced, they don't matter? That makes no sense to me. ... > clear that no particular approval is needed for them. For some > directives, the project editor specifically inquires about a > waiver, which is usually granted when there is good reason. Then the appropriate answer to Jun's question would be a citation of the waivers that have been granted. If you don't want to bother providing such citations, that's fine, but it doesn't justify you telling him to "Please go away". Message-ID: <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> <3BB8C3D3.C8BDDF45@null.net> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 01:38:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.1.216.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.md.home.com 1001986706 65.1.216.129 (Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:38:26 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:38:26 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster "James Russell Kuyper Jr." wrote: > So, you're saying [stuff that I did not say] No, and if you really thought that's what I said then you didn't try very hard to understand it. > Then the appropriate answer to Jun's question would be a citation of the > waivers that have been granted. If you don't want to bother providing > such citations, that's fine, but it doesn't justify you telling him to > "Please go away". Why should we *bother* digging up such precise references? My point was that it really doesn't matter at this point. Only TROUBLEMAKERS would demand that we waste our time on such irrelevancies. You should *also* go away, please. From: news_comp.std.c_expires-2001-11-01@nmhq.net (Niklas Matthies) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: 2 Oct 2001 02:04:10 GMT Organization: Team Rocket Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> <3BB8C3D3.C8BDDF45@null.net> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pd90161aa.dip.t-dialin.net (217.1.97.170) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1001988250 18156304 217.1.97.170 (16 [27100]) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.1 (Linux) On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 01:38:26 GMT, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote: [···] > Why should we *bother* digging up such precise references? > My point was that it really doesn't matter at this point. > Only TROUBLEMAKERS would demand that we waste our time on > such irrelevancies. You should *also* go away, please. I really do wonder who's the one making trouble here. -- Niklas Matthies -- Life is wonderful. Without it we'd all be dead. Newsgroups: comp.std.c From: Jun Woong References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> <3BB8C3D3.C8BDDF45@null.net> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Lines: 33 Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 22:46:57 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:46:57 GMT In article <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net>, Douglas A. Gwyn says... [...] > >Why should we *bother* digging up such precise references? I NEVER said in my post, "I ask *only* Douglas Gwyn for the answer." Answering to questions in the usenet is voluntary, AFAIK. Even if you and other people who know the answer but dislike to bother digging it up ignore my questions, I could not say "you know it but don't answer, you are bed!". If I can't get the answer in this group, I would try to do in other ways, for example, to contact with my national body. >My point was that it really doesn't matter at this point. That matters to me at this point. Whether it does matter or not *to me* depends on me, not you. >Only TROUBLEMAKERS would demand that we waste our time on >such irrelevancies. I'm afraid that you waste your more time on this needless discussion. Do you think this is one of relevancies? >You should *also* go away, please. I'm concerned for that there may be only you in this group after about 10 years, if you continue to dismiss other people in this way. :( -- Jun Woong (mycoboco@hanmail.net) Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Seoul From: "James Russell Kuyper Jr." Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:12:51 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3BB93EC3.9A46D5A5@wizard.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> <3BB8C3D3.C8BDDF45@null.net> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 42 "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote: > > "James Russell Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > So, you're saying [stuff that I did not say] > > No, and if you really thought that's what I said then you didn't > try very hard to understand it. If you'll notice, the "So, you're saying" sentence ended with a question mark, and was followed with a statement that it "makes no sense to me". That was a question to be answered, if you chose to do so, with a clarification of what you actually meant. It was very definitely not clear to me that you meant anything different from my re-wording. My re-wording was merely intended to clarify what disturbed me about what you were saying - the way you worded it made the disturbing features less clearly disturbing. The key phrases that bothered me included 'what the "official" directives are is moot", and "It is only because ... that they matter at all." If there's any point in issuing those directives in the first place, then they should not become moot at any point (though conformance with them might be waived), and they always matter (except when waived). > > Then the appropriate answer to Jun's question would be a citation of the > > waivers that have been granted. If you don't want to bother providing > > such citations, that's fine, but it doesn't justify you telling him to > > "Please go away". > > Why should we *bother* digging up such precise references? He politely requested such information. You're under no obligation to respond to the request, but that's no reason to reject it rudely. > My point was that it really doesn't matter at this point. > Only TROUBLEMAKERS would demand that we waste our time on > such irrelevancies. ... No one demanded that you waste your time on such issues. Feel free to ignore all such requests. > ... You should *also* go away, please. No, thank you. From: "James Russell Kuyper Jr." Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 08:27:29 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3BB9B2B1.CA90FB3E@wizard.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB7F897.85FFBA51@null.net> <3BB87CEA.20FF9E9F@null.net> <3BB8C3D3.C8BDDF45@null.net> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 26 "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote: > > "James Russell Kuyper Jr." wrote: ... > > Then the appropriate answer to Jun's question would be a citation of the > > waivers that have been granted. If you don't want to bother providing > > such citations, that's fine, but it doesn't justify you telling him to > > "Please go away". > > Why should we *bother* digging up such precise references? > My point was that it really doesn't matter at this point. > Only TROUBLEMAKERS would demand that we waste our time on > such irrelevancies. You should *also* go away, please. I just realized what it was that struck me as odd about that message. I don't think I've ever before heard anyone in real life call anyone else a troublemaker. I've only heard it in the movies and television, where it is usually a badge of honor (though not intended as such) bestowed by someone defending an indefensible position, on someone who's dared to point out why the position was indefensible. I'd occasionally wondered about that stereotype - surely someone, somewhere, gets called a troublemaker for legitimate reasons. Well, stereotypes aren't always false. I'd like to thank you for bestowing this honor upon us. :-) I hope to continue living up to the finest traditions of troublemaking. From: "James Russell Kuyper Jr." Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:27:30 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3BB94232.CC166517@wizard.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 32 Peter Seebach wrote: > > In article , > Jun Woong wrote: > [snip] > > My theory is that the reason Doug is growling at you is that you post an > *AMAZING* number of questions to this group, more than probably any other > two posters put together, and they range from "easily answered by reading > the text" to "no meaningful answer exists". It's unclear why you're asking > so many questions, or what you're getting at, and a lot of them give the > impression that you could save us all a lot of time by doing a bit more > legwork on your own time. I have to agree that it's unclear why Jun is asking so many questions. Some of the detail he is asking for would be needed by someone trying to implement the standard, but much of it covers issues so obscure that I can't imagine why anyone would need to know the answer. However, I have to disagree about your claim that his questions are frequently "easily answered by reading the text", and that he could "save us all a lot of time by doing a bit more legwork on your own time". As far as I can tell, he's usually done as much of the legwork as his own imperfect understanding of English allows. I've frequently seen him post a question whose answer seemed perfectly obvious, and I started tracking down the references to give him that answer. An hour later I've learned enough to fully understand his question, and still have no idea what the correct answer is. When that happens, I don't bother responding; I just wait for someone else to respond with the obvious answer, and I then point out why the obvious answer doesn't work. Newsgroups: comp.std.c From: Jun Woong References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Lines: 85 Message-ID: <1Pyu7.13883$ev2.22614@www.newsranger.com> X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:07:41 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:07:41 GMT In article <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach says... > >In article , >Jun Woong wrote: >[snip] > >My theory is that the reason Doug is growling at you is that you post an >*AMAZING* number of questions to this group, more than probably any other >two posters put together, I recognize, but splitting them into several postings increses the number of postings, which I think as improper. Intentionally I collect the related questions into one posting within a certain period of time to put them. >and they range from "easily answered by reading >the text" I'm not sure for my all other questions, but in this case ("some minor editorial questions") you don't seem to be true. If you think some of these quesions can be easily answered by reading the text, please copy & paste the text and let me see them. I checked the ISO/IEC Directives part 3 and all committee documents available to the public to get the answers. Besides what text should I have checked for the answers? >to "no meaningful answer exists". For example, suppose that someone answered my questions as "That was allowed by the ISO/IEC. Whenever the ISO/IEC allow that, the requirements of the Directives need not be obeyed. You can see those aspect of the ISO/IEC drafting system at ..." He could think this as short and non-meaningful answer, but that can be enough and meaningful to me. I never requested exact documents, citation from them or long explanation from them. I think the value of an answer should be evaluated by a person who asked it, not by the answerer. If the answer is not enough for the questioner to understand it, then he might post other questions. >It's unclear why you're asking >so many questions, or what you're getting at, That's just the way for me to study something. I'm skeptical and I can never skip what I have a question for. So my interest goes to the C Standard. :) - In Korea, general programmers don't know even the existence of the International Standard for C. >and a lot of them give the >impression that you could save us all a lot of time by doing a bit more >legwork on your own time. > This is not true in this case, but I recognize that this is true for some of my other questions. Okay, from now I'll try more to get the answer on my own time. When I have a question about the C standard, I post it here in somewhat poor English. Other people seem to consider those as very easy questions so it's a time-waste to answer them. Later I repost it in better English but having essentially same contents, if they have no answer. Then a few answerers appear. Sometimes the answers reveal hidden problems in the Standard, which can be materials for Defect Reports. Suppose that the committee allows the following program as strictly conforming for all conforming implementations exceptionally. void main(void) { return 0; } People who hear the fact that the above program is s.c. but don't know the rationale, would have a question why only the program can be s.c., even if the C Standard does not say so. Then should only proper answer for his question be "Yes, it's strictly conforming. Please go away."? Thanks. -- Jun Woong (mycoboco@hanmail.net) Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Seoul From: "Clive D. W. Feather" Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:53:25 +0100 Organization: Demon Internet Message-ID: References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Reply-To: "Clive D.W. Feather" NNTP-Posting-Host: romana.davros.org X-NNTP-Posting-Host: romana.davros.org:194.217.240.35 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002134303 nnrp-07:26057 NO-IDENT romana.davros.org:194.217.240.35 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-U (<81yImECxEkLwWkbKTSiEkLA3nC>) Lines: 31 In article <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writes >My theory is that the reason Doug is growling at you is that you post an >*AMAZING* number of questions to this group, more than probably any other >two posters put together, and they range from "easily answered by reading >the text" to "no meaningful answer exists". It's unclear why you're asking >so many questions, or what you're getting at, and a lot of them give the >impression that you could save us all a lot of time by doing a bit more >legwork on your own time. I disagree. While some of them seem to have simple answers, a number of JW's questions have been the seeds that grew into some of the Defect Reports I've just filed. ---- I would also like to comment on some people's comments that it's just a question of poor English comprehension. One of the formal matters on WG14's agenda is a paper from Japan and the committee's response to it. In my opinion, much of this paper simply asks questions that are "obvious" to a native English speaker. The only differences between this and Jun are: - Jun didn't go through the correct bureaucracy; - Jun's questions are more interesting. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: Fax: +44 20 8371 4037 (D-fax) | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address From: "James Russell Kuyper Jr." Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:27:30 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3BB94232.CC166517@wizard.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3BB9056B.6595F058@wizard.net> <3BB91AEB.3FB2E11D@null.net> <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 32 Peter Seebach wrote: > > In article , > Jun Woong wrote: > [snip] > > My theory is that the reason Doug is growling at you is that you post an > *AMAZING* number of questions to this group, more than probably any other > two posters put together, and they range from "easily answered by reading > the text" to "no meaningful answer exists". It's unclear why you're asking > so many questions, or what you're getting at, and a lot of them give the > impression that you could save us all a lot of time by doing a bit more > legwork on your own time. I have to agree that it's unclear why Jun is asking so many questions. Some of the detail he is asking for would be needed by someone trying to implement the standard, but much of it covers issues so obscure that I can't imagine why anyone would need to know the answer. However, I have to disagree about your claim that his questions are frequently "easily answered by reading the text", and that he could "save us all a lot of time by doing a bit more legwork on your own time". As far as I can tell, he's usually done as much of the legwork as his own imperfect understanding of English allows. I've frequently seen him post a question whose answer seemed perfectly obvious, and I started tracking down the references to give him that answer. An hour later I've learned enough to fully understand his question, and still have no idea what the correct answer is. When that happens, I don't bother responding; I just wait for someone else to respond with the obvious answer, and I then point out why the obvious answer doesn't work. Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3BB94232.CC166517@wizard.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test74 (May 26, 2000) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Originator: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Date: 02 Oct 2001 16:25:39 GMT Lines: 18 Message-ID: <3bb9ea83$0$331$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 52a764c3.news.plethora.net X-Trace: 1002039939 gemini.plethora.net 331 seebs@205.166.146.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@plethora.net In article <3BB94232.CC166517@wizard.net>, James Russell Kuyper Jr. wrote: >I've frequently seen him post a question whose answer seemed perfectly >obvious, and I started tracking down the references to give him that >answer. An hour later I've learned enough to fully understand his >question, and still have no idea what the correct answer is. When that >happens, I don't bother responding; I just wait for someone else to >respond with the obvious answer, and I then point out why the obvious >answer doesn't work. Ahh. You have a point; I haven't bothered to pursue most of them. -s -- Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net $ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists. C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/ From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: [JW] some minor editorial questions Date: 2 Oct 2001 18:59:55 GMT Organization: University of Cambridge, England Lines: 25 Message-ID: <9pd2rb$amh$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk> References: <94f0654c.0109292308.4359e29e@posting.google.com> <3bb92d7e$0$325$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> <3BB94232.CC166517@wizard.net> <3bb9ea83$0$331$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk In article <3bb9ea83$0$331$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach wrote: >In article <3BB94232.CC166517@wizard.net>, >James Russell Kuyper Jr. wrote: >>I've frequently seen him post a question whose answer seemed perfectly >>obvious, and I started tracking down the references to give him that >>answer. An hour later I've learned enough to fully understand his >>question, and still have no idea what the correct answer is. When that >>happens, I don't bother responding; I just wait for someone else to >>respond with the obvious answer, and I then point out why the obvious >>answer doesn't work. > >Ahh. You have a point; I haven't bothered to pursue most of them. My experience is similar. The INTENT may be obvious, but it is often much less clear whether the standard's wording expresses the intent, or whether the intent leads to an unambiguous state. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679