Faster for() loops? - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Faster for() loops?
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:19:39 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson

Quoted text here. Click to load it

My point exactly.  

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it


As in this case.

(Which, I admit, I faked. :-)  But I have read followups to which
the ancestor was missing, and in many cases, the followup was
incomprehensible as a result.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W)  +1 801 277 2603
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Snipping attributions is considered rude.  The quoted material
starting with "I'm going to make one and only one attempt" is mine.
I don't remember who write the line above that.

There is one valid point in the referenced web page (titled "In
Defence of Top Posting"):

    Bottom posting without snipping irrelevant pats is at least as
    annoying as a top-post.

Which is why nobody recommends bottom-posting without snipping
irrelevant parts.

Apart from that, the argument seems to be based on assumptions about
the software people use to read Usenet, and the environment in which
it runs.

Once again: Usenet is an asynchronous medium.  The parent article may
not have arrived yet.  It may have expired.  It may never arrive at
all.  I may have read it a week ago and forgotten it, and I very like
have my newsreader configured not to display articles I've already
read.

A simple command to jump to the parent article is a useful feature in
a newsreader, and one that exists in the one I use.  I have no idea
which other newsreaders have such a command.  That's why I try to make
each article readable by itself.

Perhaps the most telling point in the web page is:

    A Threaded newsreader. These days, pretty much every PC has one.

Not everyone reads Usenet on a PC.

I realize this is cross-posted to comp.lang.c and comp.arch.embedded.
Perhaps top-posting is tolerated in comp.arch.embedded.  In
comp.lang.c, we've reached a general consensus that top-posting is
discouraged, for perfectly valid reasons.  And even if I *liked*
top-posting, I wouldn't do it in comp.lang.c; consistency is even more
important than the arguments in favor of a given style.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) snipped-for-privacy@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Faster for() loops?
<snip>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Top-posting is strongly discouraged in comp.arch.embedded as well.  It's
not as bad as google groups posts that fail to include any context,
however, which seems to be considered the worst sin at the moment (I'm
not sure where posting in html ranks these days - I haven't seen any
html posts here for a while).

David.

Re: Faster for() loops?
On 28 Sep 2005 09:30:44 +0200, David Brown

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It amazes me how some people can claim to speak for the whole group
with no documentation at all.  I, for one, appreciate top-posting when
it is appropriate.  At least I won't claim to speak for a whole group
who did not elect me to represent them.


-Robert Scott
 Ypsilanti, Michigan

Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't like top posting.

--
pete

Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

For the record, I simply don't care. I'm happy to make allowances for all
kinds. Life's too short.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com



Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I can't claim to speak for everyone in the group, obviously.  Every
newsgroup post has an implicit "IMHO" attached.  But I think it's a fair
summary of the opinions of the group, or at least of those who post
regularly.  And very few people object to top-posting when it is
appropriate - it is just the definition of "appropriate" that they
disagree on...

Anyway, the key point with posting etiquette is to be (reasonably)
polite and informative, and to remember it's a conversation between real
people.  If, as is normally the case, top-posting makes it unnecessarily
harder for people to follow the sense of a post, then it is impolite and
uninformative, just like posting in SMS or all caps.  If top-posting
makes a reply easier to read, then it is appropriate (although usually
snipping would be far better).

Re: Faster for() loops?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Indeed.  Having just read the thread it has only just dawned on me
(after 18 years reading USENET) what "top posting" is.  I always
thought it was posting a reply to the first message in a thread instead
of replying to the specific one you were answering - something that
would throw anyone off the trail... especially with threadded
newsreaders.

But now it appears it's something so small - the order of text within a
message.  My God... how anal some people are.  Ok, that's unfair, but
only just.

I can see how a top-posting may be harder to speed-read than a
bottom-posting but kill files?  Abuse?  Posting nagging comments to the
thread without actually furthering the discussion?

You know, people are clever.  They can figure out messages.  I don't
see how your personal quests do anything but make you feel important.


I don't know.  This thread amazes me.  It simply amazes me.


Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
[...]
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Take a look at the context in groups.google.com.  One poster (initials
JB) was asked not to top-post.  He made a top-posted followup.  He was
reminded again.  He replied with personal abuse, and has continued to
do so.

Most of us don't killfile posters for top-posting.  People are
killfiled for being rude and abusive, especially when they do so in
response to good advice.

If you joined this thread already in progress, I can see how you might
think we're heaping abuse on top-posters.  That's not what's going on.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) snipped-for-privacy@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Faster for() loops?

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yet you bottom post anyway. Probably because you have just followed the
convention because that is the normal and polite thing to do.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Since the posts won't get read by a number of skilled people otherwise
it is useful advise, as well as the long standing practice.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, my initial reply contained one or two lines about posting style and
many lines of reply to the actual message. I was possibly a little short
in that one line but it was not kill filing or abuse and nor was it a
post not forwarding the discussion. I believe the same applies to most
if not all posts I have made where I have requested that people not top
post.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, we do it because we are not prepared to put in the effort to deal
with the mess top-posting makes of a thread and would prefer that people
follow long standing conventions than that they were ignored and
received no assistance.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It amazes me that people who defend top posters assume that those
requesting newcomers follow the long standing convention of bottom
posting assume that all we ever do is complain about peoples posting
style and abuse them for it without bothering to check.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Faster for() loops?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
(snip)
Quoted text here. Click to load it
(snip)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Gulliver would perhaps have called that the battle of
top postians vs bottom postians ;)


Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well said - my feelings entirely.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah. Erm. Hmmm. Ooops. Touché.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com



Re: Faster for() loops?
Personally, sometimes I like top.......


Quoted text here. Click to load it
and sometimes I like bottom....(also in posting too... (are smilies
allowed? :)   ....))
Wow, with all the other issues there are in this forum to discuss, I
can't believe how anal some ppl are....sheesh!
John

Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I liked you until I got to the end.

--
Mabden



Re: Faster for() loops?
On 28 Sep 2005 09:30:44 +0200, in comp.arch.embedded David Brown

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Dont worry, micro$oft is working on it (sorry, couldn't resist)




martin

Re: Faster for() loops?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

<snip information on correct posting which has been ignored>

Well, one thing you seem to have learned is how to avoid getting help
when you want it. The convention of bottom posting has been established
for a long time and the reasons for it have been discussed here and else
where on many occasions, so I'm not going to debate them. Had you taken
not of the practices of this group you would have known this.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Faster for() loops?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


*plonk*




Brian

Top posting
If you want a debate about top posting change the subject line so everyone who
doesn't care if it is cross posted top posted, middle posted, bottom posted ,
written in one line or in HTML can filter out the noise.

Default User wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Top posting
Oh dreidel, dreidel, dreidel
I made it out of clay
And when it's dry and ready
Then dreidel I shall play!

It has a lovely body
With legs so short and thin
And when my dreidel's tired
It drops and then I win!

Oh dreidel, dreidel, dreidel
I made it out of clay
And when it's dry and ready
Then dreidel I shall play!

My dreidel's always playful
It loves to dance and spin
A happy game of dreidel
Come play now, let's begin!

Oh dreidel, dreidel, dreidel
I made it out of clay
And when it's dry and ready
Then dreidel I shall play!

Site Timeline