From: "Stuart Golodetz" <sgolodetz AT dial DOT pipex DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
References: <9dde68b7 DOT 0106241053 DOT 2a385311 AT posting DOT google DOT com> <3B36A44F DOT 28AB8846 AT iedu DOT com> <3b37c7a3$0$15028$cc9e4d1f AT news DOT dial DOT pipex DOT com> <3B37D3FF DOT 6FF43454 AT acm DOT org> <2zQZ6.30947$Mf5 DOT 7551891 AT news3 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <3B37E46D DOT 18020A4B AT acm DOT org> <izRZ6.31082$Mf5 DOT 7689174 AT news3 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <3b388eba$0$15026$cc9e4d1f AT news DOT dial DOT pipex DOT com> <3b3b50b2 DOT 214041374 AT news DOT primus DOT ca>
Subject: Re: DJGPP reserves wrong int size [OT]
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:58:16 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <3b3ba9d5$0$8505$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usercp79.uk.uudial.com
X-Trace: 993765846 news.dial.pipex.com 8505 62.188.156.108
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT uk DOT uu DOT net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Graaagh the Mighty" <invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid> wrote in message
news:3b3b50b2 DOT 214041374 AT news DOT primus DOT ca...
> As an aside, perhaps it would be helpful to be a tad more observant
> before jumping to the conclusion that someone is ignorant of hex, or
> anything else for that matter. The example just discussed is
> instructive.
>
>
> Sure, it looks like he misread an 0x18 as "18 bytes". Firstly, has any
> of you never made a mental slipup like that, especially if
> tired/frustrated? You look for a number you're expecting to see, see
> something else, and go "WHY THE HELL IS IT 18 BYTES?" Maybe you
> misread it as decimal; maybe you were actually still thinking in hex
> when you wrote it. Could be an honest mistake by someone non-ignorant.
>
> Of course, this alone doesn't suggest much either way. But then you'll
> notice that his sample code had a hex constant in it. Would be be
> putting 0xfoo in his code if he didn't know jack about hex? One doubts
> this. Moreover, and even more telling, he put 0x12345678 -- eight hex
> digits, no more, no less -- in an assignment to an int that he knew
> would (with the particular compiler involved) be 32 bits. This
> strongly suggests that he knows that each digit above specifies 4 bits
> in the result. Of course, a hex virgin might happen to write something
> like that, but equally as likely he'd write 0x145 or 0x5727598291...
> also, the choice of digits indicates the author was particularly
> conscious that there were eight digits, not nine and not seven, nor
> any other number, indicating further that he recognized the
> significance of exactly eight hex digits -- namely, that it specifies
> an even 32 bits, which was the size of the data type he assigned it
> to.
>
> So hopefully, some people here will look a little more closely at a
> posting before jumping to a conclusion about its author. Little pieces
> of evidence often add up to useful information that may belie the
> initial, and possibly deceptive, impression...
>
> I do not mean to flame anyone here, or lay blame, e.g. "You should
> have looked at his other use of hex you idiot!" or anything of that
> sort. I merely wish to show that this instance was, in principle,
> avoidable, and by looking closely we may learn how a similar future
> incident might be averted. This one can't now -- it's water under the
> bridge. The next one is what deserves consideration now. Flames and
> recriminations will, of course, lead nowhere; careful observation and
> consideration however might prevent problems in the future.
> --
> Bill Gates: "No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM." -- 1980
> "There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of." -- 1980
> "This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998
> Combine neo, an underscore, and one thousand sixty-one to make my hotmail
addy.

Yes, in retrospect you are completely right, I screwed up... :o) By the way,
referring to your signature, "This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998,
apparently the appeal court has just overturned the ruling, so he may yet
prove to be right on that one... :o)

Stuart.