Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 23:02:53 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <86frh5um7m.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vrd77d$3nvtf$2@dont-email.me> <868qp1ra5f.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrdhok$47cb$2@dont-email.me> <20250319115550.0000676f@yahoo.com> <vreuj1$1asii$4@dont-email.me> <vreve4$19klp$2@dont-email.me> <20250319201903.00005452@yahoo.com> <86r02roqdq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrh1br$35029$2@dont-email.me> <LRUCP.2$541.0@fx47.iad> <vrh71t$3be42$1@dont-email.me> <KFVCP.594649$SZca.498578@fx13.iad> <vrhb77$3frk8$1@dont-email.me> <vrru8f$174q6$1@dont-email.me> <86o6xpk8sn.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrtmu4$2s1q2$1@dont-email.me> <86frj1jpem.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrv8id$7gto$1@dont-email.me> <86tt616prh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vv7l4s$1t1h2$1@dont-email.me> <vv7ue6$26aj6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 08:02:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d37dff9bb483bb0db299c13359b14674";
	logging-data="3815179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NC1j0QJ5f5vsDbnQSYV/cQ/kEUCmwzBI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dsK5EtbjJhuJzLtFeE4UDWaa9K0=
	sha1:gFPg47Bc8hWkJEkwWpGxx8nfbR4=
Bytes: 5863

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 04/05/2025 13:04, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On 04/05/2025 05:03, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2025 11:55, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Tim, /please/ stop necroposting.  When a long thread died out over a
>> month ago, it is usually because the participants lost interest, or
>> felt that anything worth saying on the topic had been said,
>
> ...and all too often anything not worth saying.
>
>> or perhaps that the conversation had strayed too off topic or become
>> too heated.
>
> If the resurrection is to make an interesting observation about C, I
> think I could stand an exception, couldn't you?
>
>> Consider drawing the line at one week - I recommend you do not reply
>> to posts older than that unless you have something quite exceptional
>> to share.
>
> Apparently you could. :-)

I would like to respond here with some general comments about
newsgroup posting that may be of some interest to some readers
but don't have anything to do with the C language so some people
may want to skip the rest of the posting on that basis.  I think
there is a general rule that (within limits) comments about
topicality are always topical, but I recognize that some people
may have no interest so out of courtesy I am giving early warning
so they can stop reading here if they choose.

When posting a followup, as opposed to starting a new topic, in
most cases (and maybe even almost all cases), my reasons for
posting are not to take part in some general discussion but
because there are some specific points in the posting to which I
am responding that in my opinion merit further comment.  I expect
that the person who wrote the posting being replied to has at
least a fair chance of being interested, and also that other
people might have some interest but that second aspect is not a
prerequisite for my deciding to write a followup.  As with all
general rules there can be exceptions to the previous statements
but those statements should hold most of the time.

In the particular earlier case I was responding to some comments
made by yourself (Richard Heathfield);  my motivation for posting
was mainly to give him an opportunity to see my reactions to
various comments of his made earlier.  (Both my comments and the
comments made in the posting I was responding to were removed by
David Brown, and so they don't appear here.)

I also have a strong topicality filter -- and one made stronger
in recent years -- in an effort to post articles only when they
have some bearing on the C language.  In this regard I am better
than I used to be, and am generally happy with the results.

As to the followup from David Brown, I don't know why he posted
it.  I have no interest in anything he has to say, and I have no
reason to think he doesn't know this.  I don't read postings from
David, except sometimes inadvertently, and have made a public
statement about that, so it isn't a secret.  Also I don't respond
to postings from David (naturally, since I don't read them), and
respond to his comments (occasionally) only when they turn up as a
result of being quoted in a followup posting to which I am
responding for other reasons.

It's possible there are some exceptions to the statements made
in the last paragraph -- I'm not perfect, and sometimes I make
mistakes -- but it is my intention to follow them without
exception.

I make an effort to be helpful and to contribute something positive
(even if I might also disagree on some points) in my postings here.
If someone feels my comments offer no value, I have no objection to
a decision not to read them.  I do regret that some people have this
reaction, but I respect the right of individual choice when it
doesn't infringe on others' rights, and that has to take precedence
over any regret I might feel.

I hope these comments have provided a better understanding of the
thought processes underlying my decisions about whether and what to
say in followup postings.  Thank you for your attention.