Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:43:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <vrufdt$3hqd6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrd77d$3nvtf$2@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$1@dont-email.me> <874izntt5t.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrhviu$h5c$1@dont-email.me> <87ecyrs332.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vri9t1$a29t$1@dont-email.me> <20250320171505.221@kylheku.com>
 <vrif1v$c9ev$3@dont-email.me> <8734f7rw7z.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrjjvb$1esjh$1@dont-email.me> <87tt7mqk7w.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrkvt5$2k04q$2@dont-email.me> <87cye9afl0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrmckn$114k$1@dont-email.me> <871puoag2q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrnoft$15f6n$1@dont-email.me> <vrrh0c$qila$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrouo$11up7$1@dont-email.me> <vrrqe0$12u8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrs20$14vob$1@dont-email.me> <vrrvnh$176lu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs0j5$191gt$1@dont-email.me> <vrsi31$1ldng$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrtq87$2upvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vru2jb$35frt$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:43:09 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c549ec488b733e1d16304095061b18c7";
	logging-data="3729830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GQcIhwVFQqZqkebS16HY0"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CSHhiN0kFeJvAujvylD5MlVafLg=
Bytes: 2669

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:04:12 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>On 25/03/2025 08:41, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:16:17 +0000
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>> .... EXCEPT when it comes to edit-run cycles. There you're in favour of
>>> bunching lots of changes together, and doing one big build followed by
>>> testing a dozen different things on that new version. (As though this
>>> was the 1960s and you only got one batch compilation per night.)
>> 
>> I'm sure that made some sense to you when you wrote it. I have no idea wtf
>> you're talking about however.
>
>Then I have no idea WTF you're on about when you say that programmers 
>should spend 100 times as long thinking as they do compiling. (Try 

I think that says everything we need to know about you. Hope I never have to
use any of the trash code you write.