f



Getting tired by including header files

hello everyone,
I am Krunal Shah, Computer Engineer and would like to draw all your attention towards the monotonous situation of adding header files. Please consider the following scenario:

Scenario - 1:
Suppose that you are learning C language, Then at that time including the header file is not becomes monotonous. Its just fun. because at that time the person who is doing programming, only has to include the required file ( practically less than 10 ). 

Scenario - 2:
As you become comfortable with that language, eventually you will develop larger programs that offers more facilities. at this time you have to include more number of header files. That becomes little tedious.

Scenario - 3:
Now, you are expert C programmer ( just like kernel developers ) and coding extremely large programs then you must have to include several header files and you must have to do this for all files which are dependent. And this becomes the most boaring task.

=> This is just like writing the same lines into multiple files in order to accomplish the said task. ( Just like if child doesn't remember a to z, tell him to write it down 10 times. )

Solution:

I am presenting one solution to this task which has some limitation also. I want all of you to suggest me about this and please share your opinions also.


Step-1) Initially creates one header file. lets say all.h
Step-2) In that file copy all lines of code of all header files into the all.h
What i mean by step2 is combine all  header files into a single one.
Step-3) Otherwise in case if you don't want to do step2 then put #include lines for all header files in all.h. thus, all.h in turns includes the all available header files.


So, The main  purpose of doing this is to remove burden of including header files on programmer.

Limitations :

some biggest practical applications like Linux Kernel, This will create difficulties such as:

when you modifies any one header file then all the kernel code will be need to recompile again as per the make and makefile rules.
This will slow down the process of compilation, and it will increase the burden on computing system and frees the human, WHICH IS THE MAIN REQUIREMENT WHY COMPUTERS GOT INVENTED.



I hope, you all are agree with me. If any one wants to give any suggestion then please do it faster.


Thanks a lot.
Krunalkumar Shah
0
einstein1410
12/24/2016 6:47:24 AM
comp.lang.c 30656 articles. 5 followers. spinoza1111 (3246) is leader. Post Follow

57 Replies
772 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 22

This will surely make a one line program into thousand lines! That's the another limitaion.
0
einstein1410
12/24/2016 6:52:15 AM
On 12/24/16 07:47 PM, einstein1410@gmail.com wrote:
> hello everyone, I am Krunal Shah, Computer Engineer and would like to
> draw all your attention towards the monotonous situation of adding
> header files. Please consider the following scenario:
>
> Scenario - 1: Suppose that you are learning C language, Then at that
> time including the header file is not becomes monotonous. Its just
> fun. because at that time the person who is doing programming, only
> has to include the required file ( practically less than 10 ).
>
> Scenario - 2: As you become comfortable with that language,
> eventually you will develop larger programs that offers more
> facilities. at this time you have to include more number of header
> files. That becomes little tedious.
>
> Scenario - 3: Now, you are expert C programmer ( just like kernel
> developers ) and coding extremely large programs then you must have
> to include several header files and you must have to do this for all
> files which are dependent. And this becomes the most boaring task.
>
> => This is just like writing the same lines into multiple files in
> order to accomplish the said task. ( Just like if child doesn't
> remember a to z, tell him to write it down 10 times. )
>
> Solution:
>
> I am presenting one solution to this task which has some limitation
> also. I want all of you to suggest me about this and please share
> your opinions also.
>
>
> Step-1) Initially creates one header file. lets say all.h Step-2) In
> that file copy all lines of code of all header files into the all.h
> What i mean by step2 is combine all  header files into a single one.
> Step-3) Otherwise in case if you don't want to do step2 then put
> #include lines for all header files in all.h. thus, all.h in turns
> includes the all available header files.

That, or a variation of it isn't uncommon, especially if you are using a 
compiler with precompiled header support, such as visual studio or gcc. 
  My current project gathers all of the standard library headers and 
common project headers in one precompiled header.

-- 
Ian
0
Ian
12/24/2016 8:03:15 AM
Wow! Its amazing. Thanks.
Can you please elaborate your idea?
And if We consider the Borland C then this idea can be implementable, isn't it?
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 11:39:12 AM
now, if we remove all header file inclusion lines from all our kernel code whose include files are stored in include directory, Then will the kernel will compiled successfully?

and what about the file that is not in include directory in case if you want to use it?
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 12:14:13 PM
On 24/12/16 06:47, einstein1410@gmail.com wrote:
> hello everyone, I am Krunal Shah, Computer Engineer and would like to
> draw all your attention towards the monotonous situation of adding
> header files. Please consider the following scenario:
>

Hey Mr Computer Engineer --- before you start handing out advice on C,
you might want to learn how to control your line lengths. A length of 72
is acceptable. A length of 175 is not.

If you can master that, come on back and we'll talk about modular design
and why your idea about header files is completely screwed.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
0
Richard
12/24/2016 12:18:39 PM
which line mr. richard?
and why 72 not 175? firstly specify what do you mean by line length and about which one you are talking?

please try to KISS if you don't then first try to learn how to KISS then replay to others idea. 

If any one developing something new
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 12:32:15 PM
which line mr. richard?and why 72 not 175? firstly specify what do you mean=
 by line length and about which one you are talking?=20
please try to KISS if you don't then first try to learn how to KISS then re=
play to others idea. If any one developing something new then he/she does n=
ot consider line length. what he/she does is try to make the idea as big as=
 possible and then try to optimize that.

you want the last step of stair case without having taken the intermediate =
steps, that's not possible at all.

and what do you mean by "If you can master that, come on back and we'll tal=
k about modular design
and why your idea about header files is completely screwed. "

I am not getting you. Justify that.

and you are stopping me to post here as you said that " before you start ha=
nding out advice on C, "

is it good to stop anyone from posting relevent content here even though he=
/she totally wrong?=20

if this happened then this group must be private where only some INTELLIGEN=
T can share ideas.  but this is not the case.


0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 12:41:46 PM
one more thing, I want to tell you is, no idea is screwed. each and every idea has some hope. I hope you are getting my point.
if everyone starts thinking like you then no invention/innovation is possible. 
so try to respect all ideas, whether its is possible or not possible.

And nothing is impossible, our computer has changed the world drastically that's the proof.

if the original computer developer/father say charles babbage thought that to develop a machine that can do computation for us is screwed then, today you and me will not be able to share ideas here and not able to do large scientific computations.


so what i mean is respect every idea and if you are having mastery then try to explain it and motivate it.

Thanks.
Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 12:49:23 PM
On 24/12/16 12:32, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> which line mr. richard?

All of them.

> and why 72 not 175?

Good question. Ask it of yourself, and see what answers you come up with.

Here's one answer you might not think of for yourself: until you learn 
how to follow basic Usenet conventions, few people here will treat your 
articles seriously.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
0
Richard
12/24/2016 1:46:45 PM
I don't care what people thinks. I just only believe that these comp.* group has great importance. And for getting my  doubts cleared I posted here. I don't want to be a big like Windows and Mac. 
When I got the answer, I become happy and thinks more in deep in that. And again next question aries or if any new idea come I will directly put it without thinking about whether people takes it seriously or not. 

And I am not getting you properly regarding lines. When you are doing something initially then I think lines will be more, its genuine. Then periodically the idea becomes bigger and bigger, and line becomes less and less.

And if you don't want to explain me about line 72 or 175,  please don't make me confuse. 
And Usenet group is intended for sharing ideas. If it is acceptable then accept else leave it. I know you have written books on C and has much more knowledge than me, but sometimes a single point makes whole book wrong.

Thanks once again.
Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 3:07:57 PM
On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> I don't care what people thinks.

Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.

*PLONK*

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
0
Richard
12/24/2016 3:29:14 PM
Excuse me 

who is the best developer of 'C' at a present time?

nobody knowing this question's answer.
So please give me hint to fine out him/her.

0
janibhargavk
12/24/2016 3:31:30 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 8:59:20 PM UTC+5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > I don't care what people thinks.
> 
> Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> 
> *PLONK*
> 
> -- 
> Richard Heathfield
> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Then you will never becomes the popular auther may be( surely ).
because auther reads all the things and thinks on it which you are not doing.
so you are bad. and if i am not wrong and you are auther then stop writing "Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask anything". You are not able.
The more genius you are the more you stupid.

Good Luck.
and nice to meet you in my comp.lang.c topic. I hope you will never post here, because you don't want to help me and not interested in my thoughts.

Good Bye mr. Richard Heathfield.
Nice to talk with you.

Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 3:46:21 PM
On 12/24/2016 04:07 PM, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> I don't care what people thinks.
Well, that's arrogance.

>
> And I am not getting you properly regarding lines. When you are doing something initially then I think lines will be more, its genuine. Then periodically the idea becomes bigger and bigger, and line becomes less and less.
This has to do with readability of your posts, but if you don't care 
about what people thinks of your posts, then why bother? But oh, then, 
why post at all?

Back to the header topic, I agree with RH that it is a bad idea. Indeed 
it has to do with modular design, more specifically with controlling 
which modules (libraries...) you are using. If you put all available 
modules in the same box you loose this control, and C programmers like 
to be in control of their program.
Sure there are other reasons too.
0
Manfred
12/24/2016 3:49:49 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:01:38 PM UTC+5:30, janibh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Excuse me 
> 
> who is the best developer of 'C' at a present time?
> 
> nobody knowing this question's answer.
> So please give me hint to fine out him/her.

If you want the practical answer then the person who knows the C and the master of it is Linus Torwalds.

And even more than he Brian Kernighan. 

You can contact linus torwalds on comp.os.minix

But he will never replay and if he does he will surely be rude as advised by Andrew S. Tanenbaum to me with a little conversion on linux kernel.

I hope you are now satisfied that every question has answer, some knows the answer and some don't and some don't want to share.
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 3:51:17 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Richard Heath=
field napisa=C5=82:
> On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > I don't care what people thinks.
>=20
> Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
>=20
> *PLONK*
>=20
sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredne=
ck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if=
 you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]

as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers ar=
e burdensome thats why they should be
get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
binaries

(note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations=
) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/=
foo(/**/) you would need

1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached =
in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of inclu=
de "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like that, but is so=
me violation of present 'separation' )
2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now=20

It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or may=
be goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
0
fir
12/24/2016 3:58:30 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:19:59 PM UTC+5:30, Manfred wrote:
> On 12/24/2016 04:07 PM, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > I don't care what people thinks.
> Well, that's arrogance.
> 
> >
> > And I am not getting you properly regarding lines. When you are doing something initially then I think lines will be more, its genuine. Then periodically the idea becomes bigger and bigger, and line becomes less and less.
> This has to do with readability of your posts, but if you don't care 
> about what people thinks of your posts, then why bother? But oh, then, 
> why post at all?
> 
> Back to the header topic, I agree with RH that it is a bad idea. Indeed 
> it has to do with modular design, more specifically with controlling 
> which modules (libraries...) you are using. If you put all available 
> modules in the same box you loose this control, and C programmers like 
> to be in control of their program.
> Sure there are other reasons too.

hello Manfred,

That's not arrogance.

And i am believing that some day someone will surely help me. In this big world, I assure you that someone will surely helps me.
If you are considering this as arrogance then you are such a stupid person. if you are continuouly think that what people thinks about your ideas and thoughts, then you will never becomes scientist...

Einstein was considered as the most stupid person but today he is considered as the biggest genius.



And C programmers don't like to be in control of their program. they don't want to be controlled by their program rather they want to control their program.

getting?
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 4:02:17 PM
On 12/24/2016 05:02 PM, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> If you are considering this as arrogance then you are such a stupid person.

*PLONK*
0
Manfred
12/24/2016 4:24:00 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:58:37 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik fir napisa=C5=
=82:
> W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Richard Hea=
thfield napisa=C5=82:
> > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > I don't care what people thinks.
> >=20
> > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> >=20
> > *PLONK*
> >=20
> sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfred=
neck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you =
if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
>=20
> as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
> already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers =
are burdensome thats why they should be
> get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> binaries
>=20
> (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declaratio=
ns) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /*=
*/foo(/**/) you would need
>=20
> 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attache=
d in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of inc=
lude "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like that, but is =
some violation of present 'separation' )
> 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
> 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now=20
>=20
> It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or m=
aybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now

yet worth noting that amount of work with headers is proportional to the nu=
mbers of modules you use (by headers and modules i mean here mostly you own=
 ones) so to decrase amount of such work one can consider some scenerios

1) write all in one big module=20
2) use two modules only (appliciation / library)
3) use some more modules (like 3-6) where you divide like graphics, audio..=
.. and so on
4) use very large amount of modules (like each code file =3D separate .obj =
module)

i used all of those (wasted a lot of time on this becouse if i finalle get =
unsatisfied i needed to rewrite whole framework)

if some want guess which one seems now the best to me ?

0
fir
12/24/2016 4:26:43 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Richard Hea=
thfield napisa=C5=82:
> > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > I don't care what people thinks.
> >=20
> > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> >=20
> > *PLONK*
> >=20
> sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfred=
neck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you =
if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
>=20
> as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
> already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers =
are burdensome thats why they should be
> get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> binaries
>=20
> (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declaratio=
ns) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /*=
*/foo(/**/) you would need
>=20
> 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attache=
d in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of inc=
lude "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like that, but is =
some violation of present 'separation' )
> 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
> 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now=20
>=20
> It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or m=
aybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now

Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in=
 place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.?

He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write "=
 Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and o=
ther thing.

I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it=
 is public group any one can put anything.

whatever leave him.

but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writin=
g any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard.=
 and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.

I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and=
 he is well known.=20


And thanks fir for answering.
As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discus=
sion was already done, but think about=20

History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will=
..

Thanks a lot.
Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok.
Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 4:28:35 PM
Yes I think is possible *not*
use any header but
in this way one renounce 
the sys recognized if arguments
are right type, for the function
0
asetofsymbols
12/24/2016 4:32:39 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:54:07 PM UTC+5:30, Manfred wrote:
> On 12/24/2016 05:02 PM, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > If you are considering this as arrogance then you are such a stupid person.
> 
> *PLONK*

You proved that you are stupid, by writing this.
great, congrats mr. stupid.

and again sorry for talking with person like  you who believes in what people thinks about them. 
Look people are stupid, they dont need you, they just want your work. If you work good then they speak he is good and if someday if you fail little bit then that people who speaks good for you will speaks bad about you.
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 4:33:20 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:02:46 PM UTC+5:30, asetof...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes I think is possible *not*
> use any header but
> in this way one renounce 
> the sys recognized if arguments
> are right type, for the function

What you are trying to say, please elaborate.
Thanks.
Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 4:39:46 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar S=
hah napisa=C5=82:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Richard H=
eathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > >=20
> > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> > >=20
> > > *PLONK*
> > >=20
> > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfr=
edneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack yo=
u if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> >=20
> > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
> > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: header=
s are burdensome thats why they should be
> > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> > binaries
> >=20
> > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarat=
ions) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported =
/**/foo(/**/) you would need
> >=20
> > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attac=
hed in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of i=
nclude "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like that, but i=
s some violation of present 'separation' )
> > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
> > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now=20
> >=20
> > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or=
 maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
>=20
> Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing =
in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.=
?
>=20

I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfi=
eld of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for o=
ther users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken
[this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw re=
cently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a s=
hape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story]

> He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write=
 " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and=
 other thing.
>=20
> I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here =
it is public group any one can put anything.
>=20
> whatever leave him.
>=20
> but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writ=
ing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely har=
d. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
>=20
> I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person a=
nd he is well known.=20
>=20
>=20
> And thanks fir for answering.
> As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the disc=
ussion was already done, but think about=20
>=20
> History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly wi=
ll.
>=20
> Thanks a lot.
> Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok.
> Krunalkumar Shah

0
fir
12/24/2016 4:46:47 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar=
 Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Richard=
 Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > >=20
> > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> > > >=20
> > > > *PLONK*
> > > >=20
> > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - hal=
fredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack =
you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > >=20
> > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
> > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: head=
ers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> > > binaries
> > >=20
> > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declar=
ations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call importe=
d /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > >=20
> > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries att=
ached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of=
 include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like that, but=
 is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
> > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now=20
> > >=20
> > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (=
or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
> >=20
> > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizin=
g in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of hi=
m.?
> >=20
>=20
> I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heath=
field of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for=
 other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken
> [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw =
recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a=
 shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story]
>=20
> > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to wri=
te " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" a=
nd other thing.
> >=20
> > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but her=
e it is public group any one can put anything.
> >=20
> > whatever leave him.
> >=20
> > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that wr=
iting any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely h=
ard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> >=20
> > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person=
 and he is well known.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > And thanks fir for answering.
> > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the di=
scussion was already done, but think about=20
> >=20
> > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly =
will.
> >=20
> > Thanks a lot.
> > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok.
> > Krunalkumar Shah


What!!!!=20
You are the representative.... I can't believe.

but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me an=
y proof that you are the representative?
Here anyone can be anything.=20
I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove.
So please prove that you are the said one.
I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?

Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 5:00:02 PM
I say just

main(){printf("123 %u\n", 123);}

compile run here
 and would print 123 123
And this without any header
for *each C Library * function

It seems all variable and function
of C library 
are just names associated to
address 

But there is the problem 
that atoi(40) compile and run
(I think result a seg fault)
 instead of not compile for
the wrong type in the arg that
has to be a char* and not int

But in many experiment I done
that error not manifest itself
never



0
asetofsymbols
12/24/2016 5:04:52 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar S=
hah napisa=C5=82:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkum=
ar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Richa=
rd Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > >=20
> > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - h=
alfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attac=
k you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > >=20
> > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
> > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: he=
aders are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> > > > binaries
> > > >=20
> > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export decl=
arations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call impor=
ted /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > >=20
> > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries a=
ttached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead =
of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like that, b=
ut is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
> > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now=
=20
> > > >=20
> > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid=
 (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
> > >=20
> > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologiz=
ing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of =
him.?
> > >=20
> >=20
> > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as hea=
thfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) f=
or other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken
> > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (bt=
w recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in=
 a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story]
> >=20
> > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to w=
rite " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything"=
 and other thing.
> > >=20
> > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but h=
ere it is public group any one can put anything.
> > >=20
> > > whatever leave him.
> > >=20
> > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that =
writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely=
 hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > >=20
> > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common pers=
on and he is well known.=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the =
discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > >=20
> > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surl=
y will.
> > >=20
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok.
> > > Krunalkumar Shah
>=20
>=20
> What!!!!=20
> You are the representative.... I can't believe.
>=20
> but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me =
any proof that you are the representative?
> Here anyone can be anything.=20
> I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove.
> So please prove that you are the said one.
> I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
>=20
> Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> Krunalkumar Shah

now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold so=
me decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)

Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be cons=
idered as a active user and representative=20

0
fir
12/24/2016 5:06:07 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar=
 Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalk=
umar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Ric=
hard Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here -=
 halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will att=
ack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > > >=20
> > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
> > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: =
headers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> > > > > binaries
> > > > >=20
> > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export de=
clarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imp=
orted /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > > >=20
> > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries=
 attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instea=
d of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like that,=
 but is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
> > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now=
=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting r=
id (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
> > > >=20
> > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apolog=
izing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter o=
f him.?
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as h=
eathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard)=
 for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be tak=
en
> > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (=
btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite =
in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story]
> > >=20
> > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to=
 write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anythin=
g" and other thing.
> > > >=20
> > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but=
 here it is public group any one can put anything.
> > > >=20
> > > > whatever leave him.
> > > >=20
> > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, tha=
t writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is true=
ly hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > > >=20
> > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common pe=
rson and he is well known.=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which th=
e discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > > >=20
> > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else su=
rly will.
> > > >=20
> > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok.
> > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> >=20
> >=20
> > What!!!!=20
> > You are the representative.... I can't believe.
> >=20
> > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give m=
e any proof that you are the representative?
> > Here anyone can be anything.=20
> > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove.
> > So please prove that you are the said one.
> > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
> >=20
> > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> > Krunalkumar Shah
>=20
> now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold =
some decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
> in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)
>=20
> Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be co=
nsidered as a active user and representative

Yaaa...
Thats right....
Sorry for doing stupidity.
but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield.=20

And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 5:12:37 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:34:58 PM UTC+5:30, asetof...@gmail.com wrote:
> I say just
> 
> main(){printf("123 %u\n", 123);}
> 
> compile run here
>  and would print 123 123
> And this without any header
> for *each C Library * function
> 
> It seems all variable and function
> of C library 
> are just names associated to
> address 
> 
> But there is the problem 
> that atoi(40) compile and run
> (I think result a seg fault)
>  instead of not compile for
> the wrong type in the arg that
> has to be a char* and not int
> 
> But in many experiment I done
> that error not manifest itself
> never


Its simple my friend.
atoi means ascii to integer. and if you are passing integer the it will result in error of type incompitability.

But it is good to do this kind of experiments, isn't it?
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 5:15:47 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah wr=
ote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkum=
ar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Kruna=
lkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik R=
ichard Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here=
 - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will a=
ttack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=20
> > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste=
: headers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> > > > > > binaries
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export =
declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call i=
mported /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binari=
es attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider inst=
ead of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like tha=
t, but is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals
> > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do n=
ow=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting=
 rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apol=
ogizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter=
 of him.?
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as=
 heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try har=
d) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be t=
aken
> > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules=
 (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quit=
e in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story]
> > > >=20
> > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights =
to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anyth=
ing" and other thing.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. b=
ut here it is public group any one can put anything.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > whatever leave him.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, t=
hat writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is tr=
uely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common =
person and he is well known.=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which =
the discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else =
surly will.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok.
> > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > What!!!!=20
> > > You are the representative.... I can't believe.
> > >=20
> > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give=
 me any proof that you are the representative?
> > > Here anyone can be anything.=20
> > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove.
> > > So please prove that you are the said one.
> > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
> > >=20
> > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> > > Krunalkumar Shah
> >=20
> > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hol=
d some decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
> > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)
> >=20
> > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be =
considered as a active user and representative
>=20
> Yaaa...
> Thats right....
> Sorry for doing stupidity.
> but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield.=20
>=20
> And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.

I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 5:20:47 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar S=
hah napisa=C5=82:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah =
wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalk=
umar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Kru=
nalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrot=
e:
> > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik=
 Richard Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, eithe=
r.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word he=
re - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will=
 attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=
=20
> > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewas=
te: headers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=20
> > > > > > > binaries
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (expor=
t declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call=
 imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of bina=
ries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider in=
stead of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like t=
hat, but is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of ca=
ls
> > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do=
 now=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getti=
ng rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are ap=
ologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly support=
er of him.?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users =
as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try h=
ard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be=
 taken
> > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rul=
es (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not qu=
ite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story]
> > > > >=20
> > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no right=
s to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me any=
thing" and other thing.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public.=
 but here it is public group any one can put anything.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > whatever leave him.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this,=
 that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is =
truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are commo=
n person and he is well known.=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about whic=
h the discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone els=
e surly will.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok.
> > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > What!!!!=20
> > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe.
> > > >=20
> > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please gi=
ve me any proof that you are the representative?
> > > > Here anyone can be anything.=20
> > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prov=
e.
> > > > So please prove that you are the said one.
> > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
> > > >=20
> > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > >=20
> > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to h=
old some decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
> > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)
> > >=20
> > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to b=
e considered as a active user and representative
> >=20
> > Yaaa...
> > Thats right....
> > Sorry for doing stupidity.
> > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield.=20
> >=20
> > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.
>=20
> I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?

im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting content=
 here)

0
fir
12/24/2016 5:46:07 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar=
 Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Sha=
h wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Kruna=
lkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote=
:
> > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik K=
runalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wr=
ote:
> > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkown=
ik Richard Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, eit=
her.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word =
here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: wi=
ll attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was=
=20
> > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timew=
aste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=
=20
> > > > > > > > binaries
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (exp=
ort declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you ca=
ll imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of bi=
naries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider =
instead of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something like=
 that, but is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > > > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of =
cals
> > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you =
do now=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be get=
ting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are =
apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly suppo=
rter of him.?
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such user=
s as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try=
 hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot =
be taken
> > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other r=
ules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not =
quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story=
]
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rig=
hts to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me a=
nything" and other thing.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for publi=
c. but here it is public group any one can put anything.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > whatever leave him.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading thi=
s, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it i=
s truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are com=
mon person and he is well known.=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about wh=
ich the discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone e=
lse surly will.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its o=
k.
> > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > What!!!!=20
> > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please =
give me any proof that you are the representative?
> > > > > Here anyone can be anything.=20
> > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant pr=
ove.
> > > > > So please prove that you are the said one.
> > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > >=20
> > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to=
 hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
> > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)
> > > >=20
> > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to=
 be considered as a active user and representative
> > >=20
> > > Yaaa...
> > > Thats right....
> > > Sorry for doing stupidity.
> > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield.=
=20
> > >=20
> > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.
> >=20
> > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
>=20
> im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting conte=
nt here)

what is thios? what is buyin?

please correct it. I am not gettng.
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 5:51:23 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, fir wrote:
>
> > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
> 
> im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less 
> interesting content here)
>
The group has deteriorated. Other social media has drawn many C 
experts away, and then C itself is no longer the queen of
programming languages.

0
Malcolm
12/24/2016 5:52:07 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:22:14 PM UTC+5:30, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, fir wrote:
> >
> > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
> > 
> > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less 
> > interesting content here)
> >
> The group has deteriorated. Other social media has drawn many C 
> experts away, and then C itself is no longer the queen of
> programming languages.

Yes you are right.
C is not the queen but the king of programming languages.
and it is also true that the group has deteriorated by some of above.
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 5:57:13 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:51:32 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar S=
hah napisa=C5=82:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkum=
ar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar S=
hah wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Kru=
nalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wro=
te:
> > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik=
 Krunalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir =
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytko=
wnik Richard Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, e=
ither.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a wor=
d here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: =
will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it w=
as=20
> > > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is tim=
ewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in=
=20
> > > > > > > > > binaries
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (e=
xport declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you =
call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of =
binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you conside=
r instead of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something li=
ke that, but is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > > > > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty o=
f cals
> > > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as yo=
u do now=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be g=
etting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you ar=
e apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly sup=
porter of him.?
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such us=
ers as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they t=
ry hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and canno=
t be taken
> > > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other=
 rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am no=
t quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other sto=
ry]
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no r=
ights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me=
 anything" and other thing.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for pub=
lic. but here it is public group any one can put anything.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > whatever leave him.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading t=
his, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it=
 is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are c=
ommon person and he is well known.=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about =
which the discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone=
 else surly will.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its=
 ok.
> > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > What!!!!=20
> > > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you pleas=
e give me any proof that you are the representative?
> > > > > > Here anyone can be anything.=20
> > > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant =
prove.
> > > > > > So please prove that you are the said one.
> > > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > > >=20
> > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better =
to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
> > > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough =
to be considered as a active user and representative
> > > >=20
> > > > Yaaa...
> > > > Thats right....
> > > > Sorry for doing stupidity.
> > > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield=
..=20
> > > >=20
> > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.
> > >=20
> > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
> >=20
> > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting con=
tent here)
>=20
> what is thios? what is buyin?
>=20
> please correct it. I am not gettng.

i usually let people guess - or drop out, ( I am the One whose Language is =
full of Riddles )

0
fir
12/24/2016 5:57:27 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:27:35 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:51:32 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar=
 Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalk=
umar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar=
 Shah wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote=
:
> > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik K=
runalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir w=
rote:
> > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkown=
ik Krunalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fi=
r wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BCyt=
kownik Richard Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think,=
 either.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a w=
ord here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues=
: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it=
 was=20
> > > > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is t=
imewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained =
in=20
> > > > > > > > > > binaries
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" =
(export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when yo=
u call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary o=
f binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consi=
der instead of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or something =
like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > > > > > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty=
 of cals
> > > > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as =
you do now=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be=
 getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before no=
w
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you =
are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly s=
upporter of him.?
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such =
users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they=
 try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and can=
not be taken
> > > > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in oth=
er rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am =
not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other s=
tory]
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no=
 rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask =
me anything" and other thing.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for p=
ublic. but here it is public group any one can put anything.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > whatever leave him.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading=
 this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow =
it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are=
 common person and he is well known.=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic abou=
t which the discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someo=
ne else surly will.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, i=
ts ok.
> > > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > What!!!!=20
> > > > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you ple=
ase give me any proof that you are the representative?
> > > > > > > Here anyone can be anything.=20
> > > > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i can=
t prove.
> > > > > > > So please prove that you are the said one.
> > > > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be bette=
r to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
> > > > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enoug=
h to be considered as a active user and representative
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Yaaa...
> > > > > Thats right....
> > > > > Sorry for doing stupidity.
> > > > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfie=
ld.=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.
> > > >=20
> > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
> > >=20
> > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting c=
ontent here)
> >=20
> > what is thios? what is buyin?
> >=20
> > please correct it. I am not gettng.
>=20
> i usually let people guess - or drop out, ( I am the One whose Language i=
s full of Riddles )

Ok, I am guessing that you had write that I am stupid? is it good if i take=
 this meaning.

look guessing is not always right. and sometimes big misunderstanding occur=
s.
and i think you should not be the group owner.=20
because owner must be descriptive.

got it?
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 6:01:29 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:52:14 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Malcolm McLea=
n napisa=C5=82:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, fir wrote:
> >
> > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
> >=20
> > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less=20
> > interesting content here)
> >
> The group has deteriorated. Other social media has drawn many C=20
> experts away, and then C itself is no longer the queen of
> programming languages.

imo c still rules totally but the problem of this group is
such (what was already mentioned not once):

- alright some need to learn c, it will take roughly 10 years, but what aft=
er that - after that you know c learning it is totally uninteresting then b=
ut you would like to learn how to write so many great apps in such c you kn=
ow - but nobody discusses this (it is c real application)

this group drops out here and is totally boring and unusable and it makes m=
e evenn feeling bad here (as i feel i waste so much time in a group of lama=
s (c newbies) where myriads of really interesting topics are waiting to be =
discussed ) =20

that makes this group bad
0
fir
12/24/2016 6:20:15 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 19:01:38 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar S=
hah napisa=C5=82:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:27:35 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:51:32 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkum=
ar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
> > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Kruna=
lkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkum=
ar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wro=
te:
> > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik=
 Krunalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir=
 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytko=
wnik Krunalkumar Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, =
fir wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 u=C5=BC=
ytkownik Richard Heathfield napisa=C5=82:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks.
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you thin=
k, either.
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK*
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a=
 word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegu=
es: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs]
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (=
it was=20
> > > > > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is=
 timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be
> > > > > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be containe=
d in=20
> > > > > > > > > > > binaries
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers=
" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when =
you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary=
 of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you con=
sider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use  "link stdio;" or somethin=
g like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' )
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo,
> > > > > > > > > > > like   (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c );=20
> > > > > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plen=
ty of cals
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close a=
s you do now=20
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could =
be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before =
now
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why yo=
u are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly=
 supporter of him.?
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that suc=
h users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though th=
ey try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and c=
annot be taken
> > > > > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in o=
ther rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i a=
m not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other=
 story]
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has =
no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to as=
k me anything" and other thing.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for=
 public. but here it is public group any one can put anything.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > whatever leave him.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are readi=
ng this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follo=
w it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we a=
re common person and he is well known.=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering.
> > > > > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic ab=
out which the discussion was already done, but think about=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then som=
eone else surly will.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize,=
 its ok.
> > > > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > What!!!!=20
> > > > > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you p=
lease give me any proof that you are the representative?
> > > > > > > > Here anyone can be anything.=20
> > > > > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i c=
ant prove.
> > > > > > > > So please prove that you are the said one.
> > > > > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof?
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will.
> > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be bet=
ter to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell=20
> > > > > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking)
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long eno=
ugh to be considered as a active user and representative
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Yaaa...
> > > > > > Thats right....
> > > > > > Sorry for doing stupidity.
> > > > > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathf=
ield.=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
> > > >=20
> > > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting=
 content here)
> > >=20
> > > what is thios? what is buyin?
> > >=20
> > > please correct it. I am not gettng.
> >=20
> > i usually let people guess - or drop out, ( I am the One whose Language=
 is full of Riddles )
>=20
> Ok, I am guessing that you had write that I am stupid? is it good if i ta=
ke this meaning.
>=20
> look guessing is not always right. and sometimes big misunderstanding occ=
urs.
> and i think you should not be the group owner.=20
> because owner must be descriptive.
>=20
> got it?

not quite -=20

imo you got even some fine energy (i felt a moment like youre a fellow who =
has light head and good mood - see things in positive shape ) - as this is =
contagious i even felt better for a while [ and it is quite opposite to me =
who last 5 days is sick live in some kind of acute pain  and almost feel li=
ke dayin - in such state seein a people who thinks happy is like deeply stu=
nning ]

but such good mood is volatile - i could use it egoistically as a cheap pai=
nkiller (my friend said dont use painkillers but im not sure if he minded t=
his kind ones ) untill it works but you will lost it soon i think
0
fir
12/24/2016 6:43:13 PM
Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:

It's always so nice to see when two kindred spirits meet!

In the left corner we have Prof. fir, the local champion
and a programmer at large, well known for his extensive
knowlegde of C. All here love the elegance of his arguments
and the meekness he shows when someone is so stupid as to
not follow them without questions.

But wait, in the other corner we have an unknown, but his
nom de guerre should make us all careful not to dismiss
him lightly: it's EINSTEIN. Obviously, he must be nearly
as good as our Prof. fir - or is he even better?

This will be an interesting evening for all of us, ladies
and gentlemen! Get yourself a beer (the first one is on the
house) and enough popcorn and enjoy the show!

-- 
  \   Jens Thoms Toerring  ___      jt@toerring.de
   \__________________________      http://toerring.de
0
jt
12/24/2016 6:43:30 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 19:43:38 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Jens Thoms To=
erring napisa=C5=82:
> Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote:
>=20
> It's always so nice to see when two kindred spirits meet!
>=20
> In the left corner we have Prof. fir, the local champion
> and a programmer at large, well known for his extensive
> knowlegde of C. All here love the elegance of his arguments
> and the meekness he shows when someone is so stupid as to
> not follow them without questions.
>=20
> But wait, in the other corner we have an unknown, but his
> nom de guerre should make us all careful not to dismiss
> him lightly: it's EINSTEIN. Obviously, he must be nearly
> as good as our Prof. fir - or is he even better?
>=20
> This will be an interesting evening for all of us, ladies
> and gentlemen! Get yourself a beer (the first one is on the
> house) and enough popcorn and enjoy the show!
>=20

Krunalkumar Shah has just a fresh wiev and this is state which boosts his i=
ntelligence temporarely (i think fresh wiev boostes everybody intelligence =
) so it is possibly more occasions to make some 'unusuality' (which im alwa=
ys after - even sick) =20
0
fir
12/24/2016 7:01:33 PM
Hello jens,

Are you talking about me? 
What do you think I am more intelligent than fir? And as you told that 2 good spirits are you talking about me and fir?
Please justify all the things.
Do you want to know more about me ( the unknown EINSTEIN ).

I think you got my name as "EINSTEIN" from my e-mail address.

And yes let's have cold drink, I don't take beer.

Thanks a lot.
Your UNKNOWN EINSTEIN 
Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 7:03:37 PM
Again fir you are confusing me. What do you mean by wiev?
And what you want to tell about unusuality.?

Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 7:09:54 PM
Again fir you are confusing me. What do you mean by wiev?
And what you want to tell about unusuality.?

Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/24/2016 7:10:34 PM
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 20:10:01 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar S=
hah napisa=C5=82:
> Again fir you are confusing me. What do you mean by wiev?
> And what you want to tell about unusuality.?
>=20


you being newcomer presented wiev for a while
(by wiev i mean opposite of view, )

i think that being serious i cannot answer your question without establishi=
ng view (indeed you asking for a "view")
which is bad (esp as i feel sick again), wievs are far more fine to me

 theoretically one should also consider=20
UNDEFINED im nt sure it this is just=20
linera "view - UNDEFINED - wiev" but for=20
some it is better to stick to UNDEFINED than=20
to view here=20

(more i dont want to answer as i dont feel
i got something interesting to say and that would be
timewaste)
0
fir
12/24/2016 7:44:46 PM
> W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 20:10:01 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Krunalkumar=
 Shah napisa=C5=82:
> > And what you want to tell about unusuality.?

by unusuality i mean when you consider such thing=20
which is more like text than 3d object then you can just take some views on=
 it, but you also can not take views go more UNDEFINED and feel it  more li=
ke a fog - i personally like it and value it (you also possibly can look it=
 totally=20
upside down but this is harder as some of the views are like deeper in my o=
wn, for example if i feel pain (or am depressive) it is not so easy to turn=
 it all upside down and be happy )
0
fir
12/24/2016 8:13:42 PM
On 12/25/16 12:39 AM, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> Wow! Its amazing. Thanks.

Keeping some context form previous messages would be nice.

> Can you please elaborate your idea?

Have a read up on precomplied headers.  Ours being a large project, the 
main reason for using them is to minimise build times as well as visual 
clutter.

-- 
Ian
0
Ian
12/24/2016 8:37:04 PM
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 8:37:11 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 12/25/16 12:39 AM, Krunalkumar Shah wrote:
> > Wow! Its amazing. Thanks.
> 
> Keeping some context form previous messages would be nice.
> 
> > Can you please elaborate your idea?
> 
> Have a read up on precomplied headers.  Ours being a large project, the 
> main reason for using them is to minimise build times as well as visual 
> clutter.
> 
Microsoft's compiler used to get into the state where it demanded 
"stdafx.h" included in every source file, and however much you 
played with the settings it would not compile portable C source.

However yes. If you've got the misfortune of having a huge project
and a non-stable low-level include that everything else depends on,
getting build times down can be important. Though to be honest
I find that if you stick to C then on a modern machine, projects
have to be pretty large before build time starts being an issue.

0
Malcolm
12/24/2016 10:17:15 PM
No Fir, you are wrong.
You can make anything to be defined or undefined view or weiv.

"Imagination is more important than the knowledge because the knowledge is limited while imagination encircles the whole world."

I can define that we are talking using Google group, but It is not defined that where is physically located. So we must have to take  weiv at some time whenwe can't make view.

And this is the new way of thinking.

Same thing happens in C in case of pointers, C return the memory address, but no one from us have ever tried to find that is the location is right?
So what we are doing while programming using pointer is just weiving and if some tried to check each and every memory location to find that C is right then it is called view.


Now tell me, which one is good?? 
Now a days everybody is doing just like weiv. But initially when Denis Ritchie developing pointer then he might does the thing that I told above. 
So the view are only important for sometimes and someone only. What others are doing is weiv.

So try to weiv rather than view.

I hope you are getting my point of view or my point of weiv.

Getting.
Am I right or am I rights, mr.. fir ? And also everybody?

Thanks.
Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 1:12:16 AM
To become happy or sad/ill is totally independent, fir.
If you want to be happy no one can stop you and if you want to become sad then again no one stops you.
So, it is not related to our view and weiv concepts.

Getting?
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 1:15:17 AM
Good lan thanks for this knowledge. But I don't know what do you mean by visual clutter?
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 1:18:06 AM
Yaa that's true. Project must be largs but not larger than the biggest practical application ( Linux Kernel ).
And stop using windows.
Its just waste of time. Start using any open source compiler. Its good not only for compilation but also of enjoyment.

And such truly windows is for those who don't know how to use computers. 
Once my friend Giovanni ( Giovanni.homelinux.net ) told me :
"  A computer is like air conditioner, it will stop working when you open windows ". 
So close window and starts terminal, which the king of all computing resources.

Thanks

Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 1:27:43 AM
What is stdafx.h? 
Please describe this. And also describes the problem occurred...
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 1:28:59 AM
Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> writes:
> What is stdafx.h? 

Try Googling it.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
0
Keith
12/25/2016 1:32:04 AM
The persons like you had ruined this group.
If everything is done by Google then what is the need of people, professor or school or college. If you are right then close all college and everybody will Google something.


And Google sometimes wrong. And it provides only those information that is stored in its database. While if the person whom I am asking, will surely explain me deeply. 


So, please stop talking about googling. I like it because I hate it and I know that I don't know why everybody wants Google....

Truly Google is no more then our C.
Because Google was developed in python which in turns in C. One can defeat Google by only C, not none does, I will.
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 1:37:47 AM
And one more thing don't interrupt while two are talking. And I had not asked that question to you.
If you don't want to answer them remain calm, just don't ans like the above one.
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 1:39:53 AM
Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> writes:
> And one more thing don't interrupt while two are talking. And I had
> not asked that question to you.  If you don't want to answer them
> remain calm, just don't ans like the above one.

That's not how this works.  This is, as you've observed, a public
newsgroup.  If you want to have a one-on-one conversation with
someone, feel free to use e-mail.

(Which I've done, BTW; did you read the message I sent you?)

If you have no idea what stdafx.h is, a Google search should be a
good start.  If you still have questions after that, feel free to
ask here.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
0
Keith
12/25/2016 2:57:52 AM
Ya keith.

You are right, Indeed.
i am completely agreeing you.
sorry for mis-behavioour.

I forget the main aim of this publicly available group. Thanks for remembering me about this.

Thanks once again keith.

Krunalkumar Shah
0
Krunalkumar
12/25/2016 3:34:29 AM
Reply: