🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <danpop.824848868@rscernix>, danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> In <nevin-1902962104170001@150.135.1.79> nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin
":-]" Liber) writes:
> 
> >In article <danpop.824475697@rscernix>, danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
> >
> >> >Like I said, this stuff isn't that easy to get right and 100% portable.
> >
> >> It's definitely portable, because buff doesn't have to be statically
> >> allocated.  It's trivial to compute the maximum size of buff, based on
> >> sizeof(int) and allocate the right number of bytes for buff (ever heard


[ Numbers, integers, fractions, percentages, were flying all around! They
were shot down and DELETED, nevertheless...]


> >> It's easy to get it right and 100% portable for any C programmer with half
> >> a clue 
> Here it is: CHAR_BIT * sizeof(int) * log(2) / log(10) + 3, converted to
> an integer type, of course.  Replace 2 and 10 by 2.0 and 10.0 if you
> don't have an ANSI C compiler.


   [CUT and CUT some more...]


> (CHAR_BIT * sizeof(int) * 6931471) / 23025850 + 3
> 
> Unfortunatelly, it's considerably more obfuscated than the original version 
> (three magical constants are a bit too much).


 [Some fighting words, were also DELETED...]
 

> Wow, since when are you a mind reader?
> 
> >is that the maximum size of
> >buff is also dependent on the number of bits per byte.
> 
> Don't be idiot.  The number of bits per byte has to be used in order to
> compute the number of bits of the int type and this computation is 
> unavoidable when computing the size of the buffer.  It's obvious that
> the final result of an expression depends on all the factors involved in
> that expression.  You don't need a PhD in math to realize this.

  [Are you going to let him get away with THAT?! Additional DELETIONS...]


> Dan (whose name can be seen in the "Acknowledgements" section of the
>      comp.lang.c FAQ :-)

   
   Well, there you go! It looks like Mr. Nevin ":-]" Liber picked the
wrong computer buff to argue with... Goes to show you that even where
science and mathematics are involved ( the only things which supposedly DO
NOT LIE and/or can be relied upon), there will always be room for
arguments. 

> Dan Pop
> CERN, CN Division
> Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
> Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland


 From the sidelines, the argument is fascinating. The closest thing to a
fistfight... Perhaps the international language of an argument (in the
regular sense of the word) IS mathematics/numbers, after all!...

  Have either one of you considered giving Apple a hand with Copland?

  I hope that the guys from Apple are 1/10th as enthusiastic about
programming, as you two seem to be. If they would have a had only 50% of
your energy and drive, Copeland would have been out three months ago!

  Apologies for the interruption,


Candide

-- 
"Madness is rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, nations and ages, it is the rule."

"The consequences of our actions take hold of us, quite indifferent to our claim that meanwhile we have 'improved'"

Friedrich Nietzsche