NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part1/6213

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 5.3 KB

Path: solon.com!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Peter Seebach)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What to do when feof() is NOT feof()
Date: 22 Feb 1996 19:41:32 -0600
Organization: Usenet Fact Police (Undercover)
Message-ID: <4gj60c$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4g8qa3$[e-mail]> <4g9rjn$[e-mail]> <4gb6e9$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com

In article <4gb6e9$[e-mail]>,
Mike McCarty <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <4g9rjn$[e-mail]>,
>)The Bottom line: I was only trying to give someone who was looking for some
>)help, an idea of what might be the problem. What is wrong with that? Why
>)should
>)I be attacked for that?

You shouldn't.  You should (or at least, could legitimately) be attacked
for failing to properly qualify your answers, when you didn't have suficient
experience to know they were correct.

>You shouldn't. Dan Pop is well known for

>    acting as self-appointed moderator
Nonsense.  He's correcting people about off-topic posts; he does not appear
to be cancelling or rejecting articles.  *I* cancel or reject articles,
but only in the group I moderate.

>    using abusive language
Yes.  I do too.  If someone posts something sufficiently stupid as an answer,
I will insult it.

>    being quick to cause offense
Arguable, but certainly not a fatal flaw; wizards are tempramental.

>    being quick to take offense
This, I haven't seen.  I've seen Dan insult people, but I've never seen him
act offended unless someone said something genuinely offensive.

>He occasionally gives help.

He *frequently* gives help, correcting dozens of errors a week.

>Sometimes it is even good.

I've seen him make one (1) mistake in the last year that wasn't a typo.
Apart from that, well, Dan is someone I would consider nearly as reliable
as the Standard.  There are about three people I can think of I'd ask
for clarification on a C issue; he's one of them.  He's also very
approachable about it, and quite helpful.

>He does seem to be pretty knowledgeable.

He *is* pretty knowledgeable.  I'm (if I do say so myself) quite good.  I
can tell.

>But the accent must be on the seem. On several
>occasions he has posted with seeming omniscience, only to be caught out
>wrong.

As I said, I can think of one time (pretty recent, involving the comma
operator.)

>I can't recall a single instance when he moderated his statements
>to say "I think" or similar language.

You missed a beautiful opportunity here.  That should have finished
    ... or similar language -- presumably because he doesn't.

But anyway, I would assume this is because he rarely says things he isn't
sure of, and he rarely has cause to be unsure.  I don't tell people "I'm
pretty sure main has to return int", or "I think a C file has to end
with a newline", or "In my opinion, 'i = ++i;' is illegal".  I just make
the statements, because I *know* them to be correct.

>I also can't recall when he was
>caught out and straightforwardly admitted it.

I can - the recent one involving
    j = i++, i++, i++;
... he said this was equivalent to "j = i + 2; i += 3;", and it's actually
equivalent to "j = i; i += 3;".  And he admitted it.  No hassles, no
"well, maybe on your system", no excuses; he just admitted to making
a mistake.  Which is what I normally do.

>I'm not saying the events
>haven't occurred, I'm saying that I don't recall them.

It can be a bit hard to remember; and it can be pretty rare.  Dan is mildly
abrasive.  I just don't see this as a problem; I'd rather have my mistakes
corrected than have everyone be polite.  And believe me, when you've spent
another decade or so listening to the same damn questions asked over and over,
because no one remembers to read the FAQ before posting, you'll be
abrasive too.  :)

>I have caught him out in error myself a few times. His responses were
>either verbal abuse, or silence. No inbetween. And I cannot remember an
>instance when he apologized.

I've seen it, but it's rare; he rarely does things that he feels merit
apologies.  A mistake does not warrant an apology.  A particularly foolish
one may.  :)

>Personally, I skip threads and messages to which he posts. He seems to
>be one of those people who cause others to either love him or hate him.
>I personally choose not to read threads to which he posts, unless there
>are quite a few other posters, so that the noise level is bearable.

I almost always read his posts, because 99% of them are correct and
topical, and they almost always involve a correct answer, or an explanation
of a mistake.

>You'll have to make your own decision on these matters. Hang around for
>a while, and you will get plenty of opportunity to collect information
>about Dan and his behavior, and make up your own mind. He posts rather
>frequently.

I can agree with this whole paragraph.  Take some time to hang around and
see who's who in any newsgroup.  You'll quickly learn the styles of the
posters.  I frequently post horribly misleading answers to homework
problems, for instance.  ;)

-s
--
Peter Seebach - [e-mail] - Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach.
C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help.  No, really!
FUCK the communications decency act.  Goddamned government.  [literally.]
The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.txt