Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion ? does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? My PC's cores can synchronize to about 1.000 clock cycles accuracy Re: My PC's cores can synchronize to about 1.000 clock cycles accuracy Re: My PC's cores can synchronize to about 1.000 clock cycles accuracy Re: My PC's cores can synchronize to about 1.000 clock cycles accuracy Re: DECIMAL POINT IS COMMA Re: DECIMAL POINT IS COMMA Re: DECIMAL POINT IS COMMA A very slow program Re: A very slow program Re: A very slow program hindsight Re: hindsight Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... [OT] Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: [OT] Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: [OT] Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: [OT] Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: [OT] Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... Re: Music while in a coding session... on changing paradigm of assign call Re: on changing paradigm of assign call Re: on changing paradigm of assign call Re: on changing paradigm of assign call Re: on changing paradigm of assign call parsing JSON Re: parsing JSON Re: parsing JSON Re: parsing JSON Re: parsing JSON about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Re: about some potentially interesting unicode operators Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines Re: Code guidelines relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault? Re: No warning at implicit removal of const. Was: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?