TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

16 participants
6536 discussions

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Clem Cole > Im pretty sure I remember void being in typesetter C also. Hmm. In the two original 'help' files I have about the changes to C (the term 'typesetter C' doesn't appear, but it's pretty clear that's what the subject is), available through here: http://gunkies.org/wiki/Typesetter_C the term 'void' does not appear (although most other stuff - e.g. unions, bit fields, typedef, yadda yadda - does). Noel

6 years, 10 months

About Unix header files

by Caipenghui

Hello everyone Hello everyone, I have a question, I looked at the source code of early Unix, found that a lot of.c files did not contain header files, so compiler compiler will not error? Caipenghui

6 years, 10 months

Re: [TUHS] About Unix header files

by Doug McIlroy

> Has anyone experimented with building Unix using C++, to take advantage of strong typing? My guess is no--it would be a Herculean task likely to introduce more bugs than it would fix. How Unix didn't get written in C++: When Bjarne Stroustrup joined Bell Labs, he hoped to write an operating system, but he wanted to do it in an object oriented language, so he took a small detour to make an object-oriented sibling of C. That turned out to be a maelstrom from which he never escaped. Doug

6 years, 10 months

A c program problem

by cc

Hello everyone I had a problem compiling a piece of c code from the book. The result of running the book is 5050, but the compiler is 100. I don't know which is right, please help me to see which is wrong. Thank you very much! #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { int i, sum = 0; i = 1; while ( i <= 100) { sum = sum + 1; i++; } printf("%d\n", sum) return 0; } | | cc | | 邮箱：caipenghui_c(a)163.com | 签名由网易邮箱大师定制

6 years, 10 months

by Caipenghui

6 years, 10 months

Re: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 33, Issue 5

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Steve Simon > well spec'ed machines where more common in the past. Err, engineering data is not the same thing as a formal specification. If not, almost every computer built could be said to have a 'formal spec' - there usually are engineering documents for anything that was produced in any sort of quantity. Also, whether said engineering info is publicly available or not (which seems to be another of your observations) is an orthogonal axis. Noel

6 years, 10 months

Formal Specification and Verification

by Paul Ruizendaal

> I also note that the general response here was the one I almost always > get when I mention this stuff to people, which is near silence. Don’t take that as disinterest. For me at least it simply reflects that I need to find some time to read up on and digest the points you were making. Paul

6 years, 10 months

Re: [TUHS] [groff] Creating a numbered list without macros

by Doug McIlroy

An arguable distinction: I thought hard about claiming priority for -ms. Joe Ossanna intended option -m to foster macro packages from the outset. -man was an early use, hidden in the man command. But -man was not packaged (in the sense of being an announced feature that can be used from its external description) until v7. -ms appeared in v6. Doug Arnold Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote: > Doug McIlroy <doug at cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote: > >>> Why create ms when you have mm? >> >> Well, the real reason is that ms was the very first macro package. >> It has held up spectactularly well, evolving much less than the >> underlying [ntg]roff. >> >> Doug > > Or say, rather, the first *general purpose* macro package. The man > macros predate it. :-)

6 years, 11 months

Can anyone point me to source for a lex that works on Linux?

by Arnold Robbins

Hi. Can anyone point me to source for Unix lex that can be compiled and works on Linux? I've tried in the past to make V7 lex work and failed. Thanks, Arnold

6 years, 11 months

Re: [TUHS] [groff] Creating a numbered list without macros

by Doug McIlroy

> Why create ms when you have mm? Well, the real reason is that ms was the very first macro package. It has held up spectactularly well, evolving much less than the underlying [ntg]roff. Doug

6 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS