Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: "Ancient_Hacker" <grg2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Jul 2006 06:22:44 -0700
Eric Sosman wrote:
I think it's wonderful there are a few language-lawyers out there. We
need them to argue about the fine points of a language, such as how
many sequence points can fit on the head of a pin. Or why there's a
stringify escape character, but no char-ify escape. Many years ago
one of my friends was on a standards comittee, and he spent years
flying to monthly meetings where they endlessly discussed such things,
until finally the language in question just expired due to lack of a
standard.
All in the good old tradition, going back to Aristotle, where a bunch
of smart guys in togas would gather on a hilltop and grope each other
under the table while arguing eloquently and forecefully what the right
number of teeth were for a horse. One would argue that 24 was the
right number, as that's the number of vestal virgins on the Agean
corniche. Others would just as forcefully argue that 28 is the number,
as 2 plus eight is ten, the number of fingers Jove gave to Man.
But the other 99.5% of us are interested in more prosaic things, like
how to get our beleepin job done with this IMHO just about the most
cranky and train-wrecky of languages.
Now I'm not complaining TOO much, but when a guy asks for the answer to
how to remove the lug-nuts on a 66 Dodge Charger, he isnt helped much
by being given vague hints and insults as to how he's a moron cause he
doesnt know how the steel for the lug-wrench was forged. Much more
useful to gently remind him the lug-nuts on the right side are
left-hand thread.
When a guy asks how to put out the fire on his head, it doesnt help to
discourse on the quantum-principles that give H2O a high heat of
vaporization. Much better to suggest dunking his head in some nearby
lake. Which I sometimes need even when not on fire.
If you look back, there are 20+ replies to my question, not a single
one of them a clear or complete solution. A couple of good hints,
using which I was able to figure out that yes, for some unfathomable
reason, if you declare a 3-d array and index it with FOUR subscripts,
voila, the right indexing code gets generated. But also an awful lot
of self-preening comments and probably intentional ingenuousness.
I admit I participated in some misunderstanding as to the exact method
being suggested. I also should have explained exactly what I was
wanting to do, not asked for one dubious way of finishing up my
solution.
but still without clear concise and full and to the point examples,
confusion and digressions just blossom.
So not to overstate the obvious, when somebody asks a simple, basic
question, wouldnt it be nice to just reply with an answer, rather than
to stroke one's own ego by showing off how erudite one is in citing
chapter, verse, sentence, word, and syllable of something totally
unhelpful to the direct object of discourse?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: jaysome
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: Chris Torek
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- References:
- Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: Ancient_Hacker
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: Ancient_Hacker
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- From: Eric Sosman
- Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- Prev by Date: Re: Function declarations - why are they needed?
- Next by Date: Re: Help in this programm in C
- Previous by thread: Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- Next by thread: Re: Howto do the impossible with #define ?>?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|