Re: A note on computing thugs and coding bums

On Jan 12, 3:48 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[In deference to Phlip, all Nilges's polemic, rhetoric, abuse, etc has been
snipped after only the briefest scanning to identify its nature, without
actually reading it; this reply focuses purely on the technical part of
Nilges's reply, which is of course broken and needs addressing. CAVEAT: I
have not bothered to indicate where polemic, rhetoric, abuse and other
such idiocies have been snipped. Refer to the parent article if you care
enough.]

If you don't read the posts, you have no right to reply.


spinoza1111 said:

On Jan 12, 2:50 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But I think you [i.e. Ben Bacarisse] need a rider on your claim. I'm
sure you meant that the
code is valid for any character set that is legal in C (which is a very
unrestrictive language, but which does impose /some/ restrictions on
character sets - specifically, that the values of characters in the
required source character set (other than null) must be positive, that
null must be 0, and that '0' to '9' are contiguous).

Non restricted ASCII characters beyond 127 aren't positive if bytes
are signed.

There aren't any ASCII characters beyond 127. It's a 7 bit code. We covered
that, remember? But to answer your substantive point, yes, if bytes are
signed AND are only eight bits wide, then this does mean that all the
required source character set characters must have values in the range
0-127 (with the 0 obviously being assigned to the null character).

This not only is a fucking slap in the face to international users,
it's a fucking slap in the face to American users and an arrogant
piece of ***. It would NOT be if you would only DESIST from claiming
that C handles strings.

IT DOES NOT.



You forgot to add that Nul (not "null", please, that names something
different)

In C, the Standard defines the null character as the character with value
0. More formally: "A byte with all bits set to 0, called the null
character, shall exist in the basic execution character set" - C89: 2.2.1

The C standard is poorly worded. No wonder you like it.


Since the context is C, I am using C terminology. If you wish to use the
word "null" for something else instead, that's up to you, but I have made
my usage precisely clear by citing the source of my definition. I have no
qualms about using the appropriate term ("the null character", sometimes
abbreviating it to "null" just as we abbreviate "the space character" to
"space", etc), whether you like it or not.

In usable standards, it is Nul to disambiguate it from a null integer
returned to indicate failure, which may or may not be zero. You need
to get out more.



must occur somewhere oh what the hey after the character
set or some stupid thing will happen.

No, it must have the value 0, and must be a part of the character set.
Because some code point values must follow it (i.e. have positive values),
it cannot be at the end, so in no sense does it come "after the character
set".

Your failure of comprehension caused you to miss the typo. Substitute
string for set and stop wasting my time.


This isn't a library dependency.
It's implicit in Rob's processing of a final asterisk!

Not so. The asterisk character is one of the required source character set
characters, and must therefore have a positive value. It must therefore
succeed the null character (not necessarily directly - i.e. other
characters may and generally do come between them); the null character
cannot have a higher code point than the asterisk character. This is one
of the restrictions of which I spoke earlier on character sets usable with
conforming C implementations.

Your failure of comprehension or of a proofreader's charity continues.
It's of course rather late in the game to speak of charity. You have
never shown any such thing, nor are you going to get it here until the
bitter end.

You failed to see what was obvious: I wasn't talking about sets, I was
talking about strings. A reasonable person would have caught that.

An address points OUTSIDE the region it is meant to point at.

You lost me. Could you please explain what this has to do with character
sets?

I lost you a long time ago because you are willfully ignorant and
simply not qualified as an authority. It is unprofessional to just
assume that the character string will be terminated by a Nul.

You skipped most of the post, and you are such a poor reader that you
did not mentally correct me when I, under pressure from your thread
vandalism and personal attacks, typed set when I meant string.

How DARE you even reply?



--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

.