Re: A note on personal corruption as a result of using C



On Feb 22, 5:20 am, "Clive D. W. Feather" <cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In article
<9b9a332b-2ad5-40a8-a71b-af9d2e0b3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes

Most people are.  I think you
persistently repeated a claim you can't back up to malign someone
Give me a break, Ben. Clive maligned Herb Schildt with a document
presented to be about errors that was about style.

So you keep claiming, but it's still not true.

He's hounding me
here

So long as you lie about me, I'm going to correct the lies. If you don't
want that, don't post lies.

When you post something interesting, I may reply. This is Usenet - if
you don't want replies, don't post.

and vandalizing threads

You mean "refusing to accept your every word as gospel".

here.  Please back it up and I'll stop thinking that.
Just go look at his bubble sort in the sorting discussion.

There is no strlen() in it. As has been shown, the +1 in the loop test
doesn't cause a problem in practice because the compiler will move it
out of the loop.

(Sigh). The PROBLEM was that you used an invariant and you counted on
the compiler to optimize. It has been the practice in the past to
assault posters for this practice here but you were not assaulted
because you're a one of the thugs. You want a free pass for plus one
which is in some situations optimized by the compiler and in other
situations not: but strlen can also be a constant expression whereas
in OTHER situations plus one may not be.

You combine only a superficial, nonpractitioner's knowledge with the
willingness to create confusion because (as we know) you're a
politician who has long replaced competence with the willingness to
transform technical issues to personal vendettas.

.