 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
>
> What, no COMEFROM?
Actually, the problem with GOTO is not the GOTO, but the label. If you added
a COMEFROM, you'd actually have a much easier time figuring out the code.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
>> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
>> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
>
>
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Argh! Stupid newsreader segfaulting right before saving the message list,
then on restart thinking the message wasn't sent yet and sending it again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
>> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
>> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
>
> http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
That's why Ada distinguishes volatile, atomic, and "protected" (which means
basically critical section/monitor/atomic/Java-synchronized). Using
"volatile" to mean "other CPUs can modify this" isn't what it's for in C.
It's for hardware modifications, like status registers, not something you
can lock other CPUs running kernel code against.
"The spinlock primitives act as memory barriers" unless the shared data
structure is a UART status register.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I am 75% sure that the C64 would *automatically* indent your code. As
> in, if you wrote a FOR-NEXT loop, the loop body would automatically
> appear indented, and there was nothing you could do about it.
I had one, and I can guarantee that it didn't.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I am 75% sure that the C64 would *automatically* indent your code. As
>> in, if you wrote a FOR-NEXT loop, the loop body would automatically
>> appear indented, and there was nothing you could do about it.
>
> I had one, and I can guarantee that it didn't.
Screenshots or it didn't happen.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Invisible wrote:
> >> I am 75% sure that the C64 would *automatically* indent your code. As
> >> in, if you wrote a FOR-NEXT loop, the loop body would automatically
> >> appear indented, and there was nothing you could do about it.
> >
> > I had one, and I can guarantee that it didn't.
> Screenshots or it didn't happen.
GIYF.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Argh! Stupid newsreader segfaulting right before saving the message list,
> then on restart thinking the message wasn't sent yet and sending it again.
...... and again (QED).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-7-2009 5:46, Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>>> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
>>
>> What, no COMEFROM?
>
> Actually, the problem with GOTO is not the GOTO, but the label. If you
> added a COMEFROM, you'd actually have a much easier time figuring out
> the code.
>
The clasical comefrom has a syntax of "COMEFROM 110" and as soon as the
program comes to line 110 it will continue the line after the comefrom.
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:51:23 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>>>> A convenient excuse anyway. "Everybody needs someone to look down on.
>>>> If you ain't got nobody else, well help yo'self to me!" -Kris
>>>> Kristofferson (quoted from
>>>> memory) :)
>>> "Jesus was a capricorn"
>>
>> "Capricorn, eh? What are they like?"
>> "He is the son of God, our Messiah! King of the Jews!" "And that's
>> capricorn, is it?"
>>
>>
> Well, I agree with the middle quote of the three. Of course whether He
> is a Capricorn in astrological terms depends on the date of His birth,
> which is disputed. Of course I doubt if that was what was meant. :)
>
> David
Bill was quoting Monty Python there, just in case you're unfamiliar with
The Life of Brian. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Bill was quoting Monty Python there, just in case you're unfamiliar with
> The Life of Brian. :-)
Duh - and I didn't recognize it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
