Home > Archive > C > October 2005 > DJ Bernstein's str library
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
DJ Bernstein's str library
|
|
| Peter Davies 2005-10-27, 7:55 am |
| Hi all,
Plagued by the (to me) non-obvious functionality of DJB's str.h library, I
started looking at the source and what I saw took a while to make sense.
Each function runs an infinite loop, which iterates though a char* - in
order to search for needles or calculate a string length or whatever. What
got me was that each of the infinite loops held 4 identical statements:
for (;;) {
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
}
(in str_chr.c) and
for (;;) {
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
}
(in str_len.c)
Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.
--
Peter Davies
| |
| Poldie 2005-10-27, 7:55 am |
| Isn't it just an example of an unrolled loop, reducing the overhead (if
any) of the test for termination of the for loop?
| |
| Flash Gordon 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| Poldie wrote:
> Isn't it
Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post has seen the message you are responding to. Search the
group for "Google context" to find out how much of a problem this is and
how to work around the crap interface Google provide. Then complain at
Google for them making you look like a fool.
> just an example of an unrolled loop, reducing the overhead (if
> any) of the test for termination of the for loop?
Once upon a time compilers were not very good at optimising. These days
you are generally better off leaving it to the compiler.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
> Poldie wrote:
>
> Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
> sees your post has seen the message you are responding to.
And that is why the References: header was invented.
yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.
--
I was half-tempted to not quote you.
| |
| Poldie 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| > Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
> sees your post
etc etc
Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
> Once upon a time compilers were not very good at optimising. These days
> you are generally better off leaving it to the compiler.
He wasn't asking if optimization is worth performing 'these days' - he
was asking if perhaps that technique was related to registers, and I
was telling him that I didn't think it was. Your opinion of the
efficiency of current compiler optimization techniques is irrelevant.
| |
| Kenny McCormack 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| In article <qts633xocv.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>Poldie wrote:
>
>Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
>sees your post has seen the message you are responding to. Search the
>group for "Google context" to find out how much of a problem this is and
>how to work around the crap interface Google provide. Then complain at
>Google for them making you look like a fool.
You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get
it. And I'll tell you why.
Imagine that there's a mouse - and the mouse is the Usenet. You and I can
see that it is a mouse and we behave accordingly. But now there is a class
of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
glasses that make them see not a mouse, but an elephant. Seeing an
elephant (i.e., the Usenet as a web page), they also behave accordingly.
And no amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them that it's not
an elephant - that it is only a mouse.
To make this more clear, to a googler, it doesn't make any sense to "quote"
(whatever the heck that is...), in fact, to do would be absurd, when all
the rest of the articles in the thread are right there in front of their
faces (just as clear as the trunk on that mouse, er, elephant). And no
amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them not to believe what
they see. The point is you can *never* convince someone that what they see
isn't reality. The only way you can address the problem is to help them
fix their eyesight (or help them remove their funny glasses).
| |
| Neil Cerutti 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| On 2005-10-27, Poldie <Poldie@gmail.com> wrote:
> etc etc
>
> Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only
to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.
--
Neil Cerutti
| |
| Poldie 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| > It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only
> to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.
Who are you calling an ostrich?
| |
| Ian Malone 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| Poldie wrote:
>
>
> There is also a class of users (we'll call them "net nerds") who spend
Googlers is a better pun.
> an inordinate amount of time on the internet, and who seem to suffer
> delusions of grandeur which make it very very important to them that
> every last character they type is preserved, in perfect context, for
> all eternity, and the very thought that some people might be treating
> the odd thread in the odd group with less than complete seriousness and
> simply trying to answer a poster's question is just beyond the pale.
>
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. News servers throw away old
posts, google keeps them. If someone replys to a thread from last
w without context I haven't a clue what they're talking about
(since I use thunderbird and a news server). I'm not going to
bother looking for the context in google, because it will often
be a waste of time, so I ignore it.
Remember that posts are write once read many. The normal rule of
good writing therefore applys; people won't read what you have
written unless you make it easy for them.
(And, finally, odds-on the poster will remember what they wrote;
no-one else will. If you want a conversation rather than a
discussion there's always email.)
--
imalone
| |
| Kenny McCormack 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| In article <slrndm1mub.kg.leadvoice@FIAD06.norwich.edu>,
Neil Cerutti <leadvoice@email.com> wrote:
>On 2005-10-27, Poldie <Poldie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only
>to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.
Or admired by myself and others like me.
| |
| Poldie 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| > Googlers is a better pun.
Depends upon what you're punning - I was punning on Googlers, in which
case using the same word wouldn't really have had the same hilarious
comedic effect.
> Actually, it's exactly the opposite. News servers throw away old
> posts, google keeps them. If someone replys to a thread from last
> w without context I haven't a clue what they're talking about
If they have my response then they'll almost certainly have the
original post, especially if - as in this case - the response is posted
soon after the original post.
> If you want a conversation rather than a discussion there's always email
Maybe later.
| |
| Default User 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>
> And that is why the References: header was invented.
Bull.
> yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.
The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are going
to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct them. You are
in the wrong here.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
| |
| Default User 2005-10-27, 6:55 pm |
| Poldie wrote:
> etc etc
>
> Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
*plonk*
Brian
| |
| Kenny McCormack 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| In article <3scbm6Fng4o2U1@individual.net>,
Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
....
>The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are going
>to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct them. You are
>in the wrong here.
Agreed, in principle.
But, with Google as with all things Microsoft, in a very short while, it's
just not going to matter.
| |
| Martin Ambuhl 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| Poldie wrote:
>
> etc etc
>
> Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
Guess what - you have just shown your disdain for the other readers of
this newsgroup. Good luck with any questions you might have in the
future. The people who know the answers but whom you have told to XXXX
off will not be reading your posts.
*PLONK*
| |
| Keith Thompson 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| "Poldie" <Poldie@gmail.com> writes:
> etc etc
>
> Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
You probably think you don't need to care because you read this
newsgroup through Google. Google provides a badly flawed interface,
but one of its virtues is that it makes it easy to see previous
articles. The majority of us, including most of the regulars, *don't*
use Google, so we can't see older articles as easily as you can.
Those who don't take the time to show some consideration for the rest
of us are far less likely to be able to participate in any meaningful
way.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Old Wolf 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| Peter Davies wrote:
>
> for (;;) {
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> }
>
> for (;;) {
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> }
>
> Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done?
Back to the topic at hand...
It is reminiscent of an unrolled loop, but I don't see what
benefit there is. It just looks like a waste of code space
at best.
Normally, unrolled loops are used when it is performing
a set number of iterations -- so you can say do 4 iterations
per loop, so you only need to test the termination condition
1/4 of the time. But these loops are testing the termination
condition every time so it seems there is no advantage.
| |
| Keith Thompson 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| Peter Davies <peterhjr@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Plagued by the (to me) non-obvious functionality of DJB's str.h library, I
> started looking at the source and what I saw took a while to make sense.
>
> Each function runs an infinite loop, which iterates though a char* - in
> order to search for needles or calculate a string length or whatever. What
> got me was that each of the infinite loops held 4 identical statements:
>
> for (;;) {
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
> }
> (in str_chr.c) and
>
> for (;;) {
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
> }
> (in str_len.c)
>
> Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
> that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.
It's a form of loop unrolling, but I doubt that it's going to do much
good. Normally loop unrolling allows you to avoid the expense of a
test-and-branch on each iteration, but this code does that anyway
(though it avoids 75% of the unconditional branches back to the top of
the loop).
It's possible, but unlikely, that this will be faster than a more
straightforward loop.
I doubt that 4 iterations per loop is based on 4 bytes per word; more
likely it happens to be optimal in the environment in which the code
was developed.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Default User 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:48:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
> gazelle@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>
> Just because some people think its a losing battle, is no reason to
> give up.
I don't believe it's a losing battle either. Google makes it tough on
new users to do the right thing by hiding the information. Most of the
ones here have switched once informed.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
| |
|
|
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| On 2005-10-27, Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Poldie wrote:
>
> Guess what - you have just shown your disdain for the other
> readers of this newsgroup. Good luck with any questions you might
> have in the future. The people who know the answers but whom you
> have told to XXXX off will not be reading your posts.
What are you on about? He didn't tell _you_ to "XXXX off" - and,
yes, it's annoying, but it's not like his post didn't have a
References header. It's more annoying to read half a dozen posts
complaining about it than to hit alt-p and fetch the original post
in the first place. He might also have been more inclined to listen
to a friendly "Here's how to get google to let you quote context -
you know, for future reference" then what was basically "go to hell,
you're an XXXXXXX for not quoting and oh you wanna know how? search
the goddamn web yourself - and by the way the ideas in your post
also suck". If anyone was told "XXXX off" by anyone first, it was
him.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| On 2005-10-27, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> "Poldie" <Poldie@gmail.com> writes:
>
> You probably think you don't need to care because you read this
> newsgroup through Google. Google provides a badly flawed
> interface, but one of its virtues is that it makes it easy to see
> previous articles. The majority of us, including most of the
> regulars, *don't* use Google, so we can't see older articles as
> easily as you can.
I can hit meta-p to fetch previous article, or t to show all headers
then meta-l to fetch by message-id. I'm sure that *checks* pan has a
feature analogous to the second, even if not the first.
And yes, I'll agree that he was in the wrong - but "Poldie" was
downright rude about it. There was no need to be confrontational at
that stage.
> Those who don't take the time to show some consideration for the
> rest of us are far less likely to be able to participate in any
> meaningful way.
How about this:
"Hey, you didn't quote the message text... While I'm sure you didn't
mean to but please keep in mind that others can't see it - I see
you're using google groups. To get google groups to properly quote
text you can <do this>."
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-27, 6:56 pm |
| On 2005-10-27, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jordan Abel wrote:
>
>
> Bull.
>
>
> The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are
> going to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct
> them. You are in the wrong here.
"Your post is wrong and you are an XXXXXXX for posting it" is not
"instruction" by any stretch of the imagination
>
>
> Brian
>
>
Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.
Normally I wouldn't bother, but you know what they say about casting
the first stone and all that.
--
Like this, see?
| |
|
| Jordan Abel wrote:
> you are an XXXXXXX
> Repeat after me:
I'd rather not.
--
pete
| |
|
| Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> In article <slrndm1mub.kg.leadvoice@FIAD06.norwich.edu>,
> Neil Cerutti <leadvoice@email.com> wrote:
>
> Or admired by myself and others like me.
They mostly post on alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
--
pete
| |
| Christopher Benson-Manica 2005-10-27, 9:55 pm |
| Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
> I can hit meta-p to fetch previous article, or t to show all headers
> then meta-l to fetch by message-id. I'm sure that *checks* pan has a
> feature analogous to the second, even if not the first.
Even if the previous article is available (it usually is, for me),
interspersing quotes and the responses to those quotes (as in this
post) makes for vastly more intuitive reading. Not to mention that
toggling back and forth between a reply and the original post(s) is,
at least with tin, distinctly annoying.
> "Hey, you didn't quote the message text... While I'm sure you didn't
> mean to but please keep in mind that others can't see it - I see
> you're using google groups. To get google groups to properly quote
> text you can <do this>."
Considering the vast number of times Keith and others have already
described the proper Google posting procedure, it's hard to blame them
for getting testy.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
| |
| Jan Richter 2005-10-28, 3:55 am |
|
"Peter Davies" <peterhjr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
> that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.
Some keywords for you to consider are: " Branch-Prediction", " pipelining",
"loop-unrolling"
Wikipedia explains them excellent, and help me understanding.
apart from my earlier posting in this group <3mlogiF176souU1@individual.net>
I've learned a bit more about DJB's coding style.
He did that as a try to reduce the number of loops, mainly for older/bad
Compilers,
and for older Hardware.At the time where DJB wrote that code (mid 90s)
Hardware
and compilers are not that good (in optimizing) as they're today.
Because of nowadays "super-scalar" Hardware, and the available well
optimizing
Compilers I guess there is no real need to use such "hand-optimized" code.
My benchmarks on a 486-DX66 CPU, with DJB's str_len() function confirming
that.
There was no difference in using them on a state of the art Pentium IV CPU.
Cheers,
JR
| |
| Poldie 2005-10-28, 7:55 am |
| > And yes, I'll agree that he was in the wrong - but "Poldie" was
>downright rude about it. There was no need to be confrontational at
>that stage.
I'd already been told I looked like a fool at that point though, hadn't
I? There was no need to say that I looked like a fool just because I'd
dared to reply without quoting and trimming the post to which I was
responding. Other people have since been far ruder, including
inventing that I'd told people to f*** off etc.
Plonking's got to hurt though, right? If only there was a way of
posting to a Usenet group under a different name...
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-28, 7:55 am |
| On 2005-10-28, Poldie <Poldie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd already been told I looked like a fool at that point though, hadn't
> I? There was no need to say that I looked like a fool just because I'd
> dared to reply without quoting and trimming the post to which I was
> responding. Other people have since been far ruder, including
> inventing that I'd told people to f*** off etc.
I myself have a bad 'habit' of not keeping good track of who said what and who
i'm responding to, and getting messed up when the format of attributed text etc
doesn't quite fit my expectations. This is entirely my fault. In this case, I
used your name when I in fact meant "Flash Gordon"
| |
| Default User 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-10-27, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Your post is wrong and you are an XXXXXXX for posting it" is not
> "instruction" by any stretch of the imagination
This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.
> Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.
What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of the
regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| On 2005-10-28, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jordan Abel wrote:
>
> This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.
He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
immaterial.
>
> What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of
> the regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.
You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it - and in any case, why not put it in a proper sig? It's not
like people won't be able to see it. I'm not normally so pedantic,
but calling you out on that was intended to make a point.
| |
| Dave Vandervies 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| In article <slrndm4nja.hac.jmabel@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On 2005-10-28, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
>in it -
Oh? What do you call this, then?
--------
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
--------
Sure looks like a .sig to me.
dave
--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Since we like to argue a lot on comp.lang.c figuring out who said what
and when is very important, so we can properly scoff at the right person.
--Daniel Fox in comp.lang.c
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> Oh? What do you call this, then?
[snipped]
> Sure looks like a .sig to me.
A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.
--
I do it all the time, see?
| |
| Michael Wojcik 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
|
In article <slrndm1k9s.baq.jmabel@random.yi.org>, Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> writes:
> On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:
>
> And that is why the References: header was invented.
Nonsense. The References header was introduced to permit threading
readers. It has no effect on the issue Flash raised: not everyone
will have seen the message that is being referred to.
This is a basic fact of Usenet, and it is amazing that so many
people who have used Usenet for any significant length of time still
do not understand it.
> yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.
Not nearly as irritating as reading people who fail to understand
why it's a problem.
--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com
See who I'm! -- Jackie Chan and unknown subtitler, _Dragons Forever_
| |
| Default User 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-10-28, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
> reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
> immaterial.
This is sheer bullshit. He may have taken offense, but none was offered
and nothing in the original posts could have been taken by a reasonable
person to be anything like what you said we posted.
You lied, pure and simple, and owe us an apology.
> You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
> in it - and in any case, why not put it in a proper sig?
Another lie.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
| |
| Default User 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
> attached to his other posts.
A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
necessary. It's none of your business how often it's displayed, and a
pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your outrageous
behavior.
You're wrong. You've lied. You are not worth listening to.
This *plonk* is for YOU.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
| |
| Dave Vandervies 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| In article <slrndm4ocr.i0f.jmabel@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>[snipped]
>
>A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
>attached to his other posts.
So signing off with his name is The Wrong Thing because it should be in
his .sig, because he doesn't normally have a .sig.
And this would somehow be different if he normally posted with a
nonempty .sig?
I'm obviously too thick to follow your reasoning; you'll have to spell
it out for me. Feel free to use small words.
dave
(and random content-related comments go here, not in the .sig)
--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Since we like to argue a lot on comp.lang.c figuring out who said what
and when is very important, so we can properly scoff at the right person.
--Daniel Fox in comp.lang.c
| |
| Keith Thompson 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> writes:
> On 2005-10-28, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
> reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
> immaterial.
By putting the words
Your post is wrong and you are an XXXXXXX for posting it
in quotation marks, you implied that it was a quotation, i.e., that
someone else had written those exact words. I'm reasonably sure that
nobody did. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to imply that it was an
actual quotation.
I'm not aware of anything anyone said for which "Your post is wrong
and you are an XXXXXXX for posting it" would be an appropriate
paraphrase. Following the direct chain of parent articles, I see
nothing resembling the kind of insult you allege.
Jordan, I suggest you carefully re-read the thread, particularly the
direct chain of parent articles upthread from this one, and consider
whether you've misstated something.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| On 2005-10-28, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jordan Abel wrote:
>
>
> A real .sig, that I choose to manually delete when I don't think it
> necessary. It's none of your business how often it's displayed, and a
> pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from your outrageous
> behavior.
>
> You're wrong. You've lied. You are not worth listening to.
>
> This *plonk* is for YOU.
Way to not give me a chance to answer your accusations. I saw at
least one message without it attached, and its content did happen to
be related to the present discussion [and didn't seem like the type
of thing someone would have for their general-use .sig], so i guess
i jumped to a conclusion. That is the ONLY thing i did. Calling me a
liar and *plonk*ing without offering me so much as a chance to
answer that accusation was uncalled for.
Reviewing the original thread, the original response to "Poldie" by
"Flash Gordon" was not as hostile as i [mis]remembered. However,
some of the responses immediately afterwards, both to him and to
myself, and the attitude prevailing as various people took up sides
[as exemplified by the hair trigger on your *plonk* button after
Peter Davies complained that this argument was off-topic] did reach
the level of hostility i was referring to.
You still haven't explained why your name, which is for all intents
and purposes part of your sig, is above the line.
Incidentally, i'd like to take this opportunity to reply to a post
that i missed the first time around.
Keith Thompson wrote:
> in quotation marks, you implied that it was a quotation, i.e.,
> that someone else had written those exact words. I'm reasonably
> sure that nobody did. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to imply that
> it was an actual quotation.
The only mark which is reasonably widely-understood to signify an
exact quote on usenet is >, not ". [that's not quite true -
generally you can use any left-margin mark and it'll be understood
to mean that unless stated otherwise]. On a C language newsgroup of
all places it should be known that "" can mean something other than
a quote of something someone says.
> I'm not aware of anything anyone said for which "Your post is
> wrong and you are an XXXXXXX for posting it" would be an
> appropriate paraphrase. Following the direct chain of parent
> articles, I see nothing resembling the kind of insult you allege.
It's not a matter of what was said - it's the attitude behind it.
"Default User" was fairly quick to resort to [implied] profanity in
the ensuing argument, even if he didn't say it directly to the
original offender
Or are you going to tell me that
Default User wrote:
> Bull.
doesn't mean "bullshit"?
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:22:13 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>I can hit meta-p to fetch previous article,
provided its available on your news server. This is far from always
the case on my provider.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:35:41 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>[snipped]
>
>A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
>attached to his other posts.
First you claim he has no sig at all. Then you complain that he
changed it.
Like many people here, Brian changes his .sig from time to time. Since
when was that a crime?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Default User 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:17:33 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
> <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> You had your chances earlier on.
That's exactly right, he had his chance to retract that outrageous
statement, instead he pretends that it doesn't mean what he said.
>
> He has, but you're evidently unable to understand.
>
> And by the way, there's no law that says your name has to be in your
> sig. Many people don't do it that way.
It doesn't matter, as I said this is all a smoke screen to deflect away
from his own behavior.
>
> And since when was bullshit profanity these days? Get with the
> program!
It's a  day when using a euphemism to try and avoid unnecessarily
inflaming the discussion is considered a bad thing. Again, just another
way for Jordan to try and steer the discussion away from HIS actions.
Nothing I see in what you've quoted makes me regret my decision to
place him in the ol' bozo bin.
Brian
| |
| Richard Heathfield 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Default User said:
> Nothing I see in what you've quoted makes me regret my decision to
> place him in the ol' bozo bin.
On the other hand, please consider the following facts:
1) Jordan has already shown that he knows a fair bit about C, and is thus a
potentially valuable addition to the group;
2) He is very new to comp.lang.c, and it is not uncommon for newcomers to
the group to have one or two teething problems as they acclimatise to our
existing sub-culture;
3) We are rapidly approaching the season of goodwill (in some countries,
probably including yours).
For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your decision. I
happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case, but I don't agree that
his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I suggest that an embarrassed "sorry"
on his part and a bit of slack-cutting on yours will go a long way towards
encouraging comp.lang.c to become a happier, bouncier, tiggerier group.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
| |
| Default User 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Richard Heathfield wrote:
> For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your decision.
> I happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case, but I don't
> agree that his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I suggest that an
> embarrassed "sorry" on his part and a bit of slack-cutting on yours
> will go a long way towards encouraging comp.lang.c to become a
> happier, bouncier, tiggerier group.
If he apologizes, then I'm sure someone will be happy to reply with
that quoted. Should that happen, I'd be more than willing to accept
that and move on.
We shall see.
Brian
| |
| Skarmander 2005-10-28, 6:55 pm |
| Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
> [..] it is not uncommon for newcomers to the group to have one or two
> teething problems as they acclimatise to our existing sub-culture;
Which is one of inhospitability and impatience, weakly justifying this
with its impeccable collective expertise, expressed as an almost
obsessive equation of ego with the ability to embody an objective authority.
Well, as I see it. It's also a good place for getting questions on C
answered. :-)
S.
| |
| Dik T. Winter 2005-10-28, 9:55 pm |
| In article <slrndm51sb.io3.jmabel@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> writes:
....
> Way to not give me a chance to answer your accusations. I saw at
> least one message without it attached, and its content did happen to
> be related to the present discussion [and didn't seem like the type
> of thing someone would have for their general-use .sig], so i guess
> i jumped to a conclusion. That is the ONLY thing i did. Calling me a
> liar and *plonk*ing without offering me so much as a chance to
> answer that accusation was uncalled for.
Then why did you put your comment:
> Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.
>
> Normally I wouldn't bother, but you know what they say about casting
> the first stone and all that.
in direct follow-up to an article that *did* have the sig? See:
<news:3scbm6Fng4o2U1@individual.net>, to which your respone was
directed. Or do I not understand you? As long as I have seen Default
User use this sig he in general uses it mainly in cases where he points
out to somebody that his quoting through googlegroups is inadequate.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
| |
| Richard Heathfield 2005-10-28, 9:55 pm |
| Skarmander said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Which is one of inhospitability and impatience,
Not everyone here is inhospitable. Not everyone here is impatient. I agree,
however, that these characteristics are unnecessarily and regrettably
prevalent. On the other hand, it's never too late to change.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
| |
| Richard Heathfield 2005-10-28, 9:55 pm |
| Default User said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If he apologizes, then I'm sure someone will be happy to reply with
> that quoted. Should that happen, I'd be more than willing to accept
> that and move on.
I was hoping you'd be a little less hard-hearted than that and be the first
to hold out an olive branch. Ah well - I guess it's a bit early for
Christmas.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 7:55 am |
| On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> First you claim he has no sig at all. Then you complain that he
> changed it.
> Like many people here, Brian changes his .sig from time to time.
> Since when was that a crime?
I've explained the [spurious] reasoning behind my mistake and
apologized. I still don't appreciate being called a liar and plonked
when it was an honest mistake.
I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place if not for the fact
that the thread was already about what I perceived to be a nitpicky
detail of usenet etiquette.
Also, my statement "It's more annoying to read about people
complaining about it", while I did not mean it in that sense, seems
almost prescient in the face of the fact that that one complaint
ballooned into a flamewar of many dozens of posts which has shoved
aside the original question and IIRC infringed on at least one other
thread besides the original.
| |
| Jordan Abel 2005-10-29, 7:55 am |
| On 2005-10-28, Richard Heathfield <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> For all these reasons, I suggest that you re-consider your
> decision. I happen to think Jordan is in the wrong in this case,
> but I don't agree that his "crime" is beyond redemption, and I
> suggest that an embarrassed "sorry" on his part
One more time, in light of the fact that others may not perceive my
previous attempts as being sincere [To be completely honest, if i
were in a bad mood i wouldn't]:
I screwed up and i'm sorry.
| |
| Netocrat 2005-10-29, 7:55 am |
| On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:26:00 +0000, Default User wrote:
> If he apologizes, then I'm sure someone will be happy to reply with
> that quoted. Should that happen, I'd be more than willing to accept
> that and move on.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:21:39 +0000, with Message-ID
<slrndm6fql.l6k.jmabel@random.yi.org>, Jordan Abel wrote:
> I screwed up and i'm sorry.
--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat
| |
| Richard Heathfield 2005-10-29, 7:55 am |
| Jordan Abel said:
> On 2005-10-28, Richard Heathfield <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> One more time, in light of the fact that others may not perceive my
> previous attempts as being sincere [To be completely honest, if i
> were in a bad mood i wouldn't]:
>
> I screwed up and i'm sorry.
Brian - that seems pretty unequivocal to me. How about some grace here?
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
| |
| Joe Estock 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-10-27, Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> What are you on about? He didn't tell _you_ to "XXXX off" - and,
> yes, it's annoying, but it's not like his post didn't have a
> References header. It's more annoying to read half a dozen posts
> complaining about it than to hit alt-p and fetch the original post
> in the first place. He might also have been more inclined to listen
> to a friendly "Here's how to get google to let you quote context -
> you know, for future reference" then what was basically "go to hell,
> you're an XXXXXXX for not quoting and oh you wanna know how? search
> the goddamn web yourself - and by the way the ideas in your post
> also suck". If anyone was told "XXXX off" by anyone first, it was
> him.
Perhaps, however it is not our fault that he is obviously a mornon who
knows nothing about usenet etiquette. Alt-p is a great idea, I wonder
why none of us thought of that before - oh wait, some clients DO NOT
SUPPORT THAT furthermore, even in the clients that do support it some
usenet providers do not keep messages for that long. In fact, some only
keep the last 2 or 3 messages in a thread. Big surprise, eh?
This is not the newsgroup to grow some balls in so do us all a favor and
learn the proper netiquette around here.
-Joe
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-10-29, 6:58 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:18:37 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On 2005-10-28, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>I've explained the [spurious] reasoning behind my mistake and
>apologized. I still don't appreciate being called a liar
When you make false statements, or redistribute the actuality or
whatever one wants to call it, expect pedants to notice.
>and plonked
>when it was an honest mistake.
I suspect that this is because you apologised exceptionally late in
the thread, after much bluster. If, much earlier on, you'd said
"whoops, my mistake", this would have been done days ago without
killfiling.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Default User 2005-10-31, 3:55 am |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Jordan Abel said:
>
> Brian - that seems pretty unequivocal to me. How about some grace here?
That's fine. I'll undo things next w and reply more directly to
Jordan then.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|