On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 04:01:28PM +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 03:35:52PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> > > There is the http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
> >
> > llvm/clang is worse
On 7 November 2014 13:12, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:08:47 -0500
> Calvin Morrison wrote:
>
>> is that different or the same as the kickstarter assassination award?
>
> How did you know we have a hitlist? :O
>
I am in the inner sanctum
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:08:47 -0500
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> is that different or the same as the kickstarter assassination award?
How did you know we have a hitlist? :O
--
FRIGN
koneu wrote:
You disgust me.
You are an official nominee for the 2014 suckless award.
Stay tuned!
Cheers
FRIGN
Shouldn't that be the 2014 suckless-less award?
Someone's logic is clearly in question.
is that different or the same as the kickstarter assassination award?
On 7 November 2014 13:07, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:37:04 +0100
> koneu wrote:
>
>> You disgust me.
>
> You are an official nominee for the 2014 suckless award.
> Stay tuned!
>
> Cheers
>
> FRIGN
>
> --
> FRIGN
>
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:37:04 +0100
koneu wrote:
> You disgust me.
You are an official nominee for the 2014 suckless award.
Stay tuned!
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
Hey...I try. :D
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM, koneu wrote:
>
> You disgust me.
>
On November 6, 2014 6:34:17 PM CET, Louis Santillan wrote:
>There is one case where C++ style comment create a useful feature that
>I
>don't believe C style comments are able to replicate. Some might
>disagree.
>In a color syntax highlighting editor in a C99 codebase, you can prefix
>C
>style com
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 03:35:52PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> > There is the http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
>
> llvm/clang is worse than gcc as it's from the start a massive c++ kludge. At
> least with gcc u
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> There is the http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
llvm/clang is worse than gcc as it's from the start a massive c++ kludge. At
least with gcc until its version 4.7, you can bootstrap its compilation with a
C "only" comp
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:40:56PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:38:20PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> > > On a personnal level,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 01:23:30 +0100
Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> You are now added to the kickstarter.com assassination objective [1].
>
> From Russia with love,
> Putin
I'm all busy with Poettering and Stallman at the moment, but I added
Sylvain to the list now.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 08:34:40PM -0500, random...@fastmail.us wrote:
>None of this has been examined by a court.
It's because Linus T. and many core kernel devs decided not to go to
court against closed source modules. The linux GNU GPLv2 has only the syscall
exception and does not contain the "
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014, at 16:47, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Linus T. does let closed source modules live (even so the GNU GPLv2 gives
> legal
> power to open the code, or block binary blob distribution, like what
> happens
> with mpeg video or 3D texture compression),
There's a significant amount of
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:17:44PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:47:28PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> > The thing is *I* want *my* code ready to be easier to get into linux and to
>> > follow Document
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> I wonder how much of the linux kernel tinycc is able to compile.
I don't know about tcc, but there are leftovers[1] of a very unorganized
project that tried to compile the Linux kernel with intel icc and IBM
XE.
There was a slid
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:17:44PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:47:28PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > The thing is *I* want *my* code ready to be easier to get into linux and to
> > follow Documentation/HOWTO and Documentation/codingstyle.
>
> I will leave yo
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:47:28PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> The thing is *I* want *my* code ready to be easier to get into linux and to
> follow Documentation/HOWTO and Documentation/codingstyle.
I will leave you bathe in your fantasies now.
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:15:36PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:40:15PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:09:44PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > > On Thu, N
Hello,
FRIGN wrote:
> De gustibus non est disputandum. I personally prefer {/*, */}.
Agreed - taste is taste.
> There are many ways to show why {/*, */} sucks less than {//}. Here is
> one:
> If you take a look at C, everything is block-oriented. The smallest
> linguistic entity is "...;", follo
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014, at 12:34, Louis Santillan wrote:
> In a color syntax highlighting editor, doSomething(); takes on normal
> highlighting when enabled, and takes on comment colored highlighting
> when
> disabled. Visually, that's slightly improved over something like
>
>#ifdef DEBUG
>
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:40:15PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:09:44PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:40:56PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > > > On Thu, N
It's a joke only if you're laughing. Hey, it's no worse than
stringifying/blobbing a C file [0] (which works well in gcc/clang).
All people have done is game cpp and the standard.
#define STRINGIFY(src) #src
inline const char* Kernels() {
static const char* kernels = STRINGIFY(
#in
On 6 November 2014 10:28, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
>> - Don't use C++ style comments (//).
>
> I personally find C++ style comments more pleasant on the eyes for
> single-line comments, and they are part of the C99 spec.
>
> Can someone explain why they think /* */ s
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:34:17 -0800
Louis Santillan wrote:
> There is one case where C++ style comment create a useful feature that I
> don't believe C style comments are able to replicate. Some might disagree.
> In a color syntax highlighting editor in a C99 codebase, you can prefix C
> style
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:09:44PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:40:56PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:38:20PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > > On a pers
There is one case where C++ style comment create a useful feature that I
don't believe C style comments are able to replicate. Some might disagree.
In a color syntax highlighting editor in a C99 codebase, you can prefix C
style comments with C++ style comments and get single character feature
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:40:56PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:38:20PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > On a personnal level, I port some of my C99 projects back to C89, since it
> > > seems
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:27:06PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> If you take a look at C, everything is block-oriented. The smallest
> linguistic entity is "...;", followed by "(...)" and "{...}". The
> traditional comments "/*...*/" are part of this axiomatic system.
> This approach is not line-oriented.
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:40:56PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:38:20PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > On a personnal level, I port some of my C99 projects back to C89, since it
> > seems a C89 compiler is easier to write than a C99 compiler, and some part
> >
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:28:51AM -0500, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Can someone explain why they think /* */ sucks less than // ? It
> doesn't seem like it is for compatibility when st and dwm require C99
> anyway. An internet search did not turn up much, apologies if I've
> missed an obvious link or
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:28:51 -0500
Bobby Powers wrote:
> I personally find C++ style comments more pleasant on the eyes for
> single-line comments, and they are part of the C99 spec.
De gustibus non est disputandum. I personally prefer {/*, */}.
> Can someone explain why they think /* */ sucks l
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:38:20PM +0100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On a personnal level, I port some of my C99 projects back to C89, since it
> seems a C89 compiler is easier to write than a C99 compiler, and some part of
> my code could go in C89 only project (i.e. the linux kernel).
the linux k
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:28:51AM -0500, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> > - Don't use C++ style comments (//).
>
> I personally find C++ style comments more pleasant on the eyes for
> single-line comments, and they are part of the C99 spec.
>
> Can someone explain why
34 matches
Mail list logo
