[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.buildingcontrols

Reminder - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Community

nntp

5/20/2010 4:58:00 AM


What is Happening?
This message is to inform you that Microsoft will soon begin discontinuing
newsgroups and transitioning users to Microsoft forums.

Why?
As you may know, newsgroups have existed for many years now; however, the
traffic in the Microsoft newsgroups has been steadily decreasing for the
past several years while customers and participants are increasingly finding
solutions in the forums on Microsoft properties and third party sites. This
move will unify the customer experience, centralize content, make it easier
for active contributors to retain their influence, mitigate redundancies and
make the content easier to find by customers and search engines through
improved indexing. Additionally, forums offer a better user and spam
management platform that will improve customer satisfaction by encouraging a
healthy discussion in a clean community space. To this end, Microsoft will
begin to progressively shift available resources to the forums technology
and discontinue support for newsgroups.

In addition to offering a compelling online browser experience, for those
users who prefer to use an NNTP (newsgroup) reader to participate in the
newsgroups community, we have developed a solution called the NNTP Bridge
which allows a user to connect a variety of supported NNTP readers to the
forums they would like to participate in and continue having the NTTP reader
functionality. You can find instructions on how to download and set up the
NNTP Bridge here: http://connect.microsoft.com/Micros...

Which Newsgroups Are Affected by this Shutdown?
All public newsgroups will eventually be closed between June 1, 2010 and
October 1, 2010. Microsoft will be closing newsgroups in a phased approach,
starting with the least active newsgroups and moving eventually to more
active ones throughout the course of the next six months.


Where Should I go with the Closure of this Newsgroup?
In an effort to enhance and improve your experience, this newsgroup is scheduled for closure in the upcoming months and we would like to invite you to participate at http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w... forum(s). An exact date will be posted in advance as plans are finalized.

Should you want to visit the other Microsoft Forums, please go to
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/forums/de...

Who Should I Contact with any Questions?
Send any questions about the process, recommended forums and timing to
NNTP@microsoft.com
10 Answers

Richard Heathfield

11/5/2009 1:55:00 PM

0

In <timstreater-42DB96.12590805112009@news.individual.net>, Tim
Streater wrote:

> In article
> <ee58ab7e-f6b4-4f81-9b18-1f53c6cfc882@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> phaedrus <orion.osiris@virgin.net> wrote:
>
<snip>

>> The data in an array is stored in its elements.
>> The data for a struct is stored in the member fields of a structure
>> VARIABLE.
>>
>> Is that correct?
>
> As I recall, if I do:
>
> struct wiggy
> {
> int a;
> int b;
> }
>
> Then I've reserved some actual space (two ints-worth).

You recall incorrectly. The above is just a type definition. It
reserves no storage. If you'd done this:

struct wiggy
{
int a;
int b;
} earwig;

you'd have reserved (at least) two ints'-worth of storage. Or you
could do it like this:

struct wiggy
{
int a;
int b;
};

struct wiggy earwig;

> But you can also do:
>
> typedef struct wiggy
> {
> int a;
> int b;
> }
>
> which just defines a new type, wiggy,

No, it defines a new type, struct wiggy, and then gives (or rather, in
your case, fails to give) that type a synonym.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Tim Streater

11/5/2009 5:13:00 PM

0

In article <hcurbg$jej$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> writes:
>
> > In article
> > <ee58ab7e-f6b4-4f81-9b18-1f53c6cfc882@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > phaedrus <orion.osiris@virgin.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 5, 12:56 pm, bert <bert.hutchi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > No, I don't think that's right.  An array can't store data; the
> >> > data is stored in its individual ELEMENTS.  A struct can't store
> >> > data; the data is stored in its individual FIELDS.  The elements
> >> > of the array are referenced by their subscripts; the fields of
> >> > the struct are referenced by their names.  There's a difference,
> >> > but I think it's a much smaller difference than you think it is.
> >> > --
> >>
> >> OK, point taken. Let me clarify, then.
> >>
> >> The data in an array is stored in its elements.
> >> The data for a struct is stored in the member fields of a structure
> >> VARIABLE.
> >>
> >> Is that correct?
> >
> > As I recall, if I do:
>
> Why is everything "as you recall"?

Because I haven't used C for 20 years, as I've pointed out before. Sit
up straight etc etc.

> > struct wiggy
> > {
> > int a;
> > int b;
> > }
> >
> > Then I've reserved some actual space (two ints-worth). But you can also
> > do:
> >
> > typedef struct wiggy
> > {
> > int a;
> > int b;
> > }
> >
> > which just defines a new type, wiggy, and reserves no space. It's not
> > until later that I do:
> >
> > int p;
> > int q;
> > wiggy diggy;
> >
> > that I've now reserved space for 4 ints.
> >
> > I *think* that's what I used to do.
>
> Why would you offer advice in group of C specialists if you only "think"
> that's what you used to do?

Why shouldn't I? If I'm wrong, (certainly not excluded, see above) then
I expect I'll be corrected by those who know better.

Happy now?

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Tim Streater

11/5/2009 5:22:00 PM

0

In article <ipmdnQ635eYySm_XnZ2dnUVZ8ghi4p2d@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

> In <timstreater-42DB96.12590805112009@news.individual.net>, Tim
> Streater wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <ee58ab7e-f6b4-4f81-9b18-1f53c6cfc882@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > phaedrus <orion.osiris@virgin.net> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> >> The data in an array is stored in its elements.
> >> The data for a struct is stored in the member fields of a structure
> >> VARIABLE.
> >>
> >> Is that correct?
> >
> > As I recall, if I do:
> >
> > struct wiggy
> > {
> > int a;
> > int b;
> > }
> >
> > Then I've reserved some actual space (two ints-worth).
>
> You recall incorrectly. The above is just a type definition. It
> reserves no storage. If you'd done this:
>
> struct wiggy
> {
> int a;
> int b;
> } earwig;
>
> you'd have reserved (at least) two ints'-worth of storage. Or you
> could do it like this:
>
> struct wiggy
> {
> int a;
> int b;
> };
>
> struct wiggy earwig;
>
> > But you can also do:
> >
> > typedef struct wiggy
> > {
> > int a;
> > int b;
> > }
> >
> > which just defines a new type, wiggy,
>
> No, it defines a new type, struct wiggy, and then gives (or rather, in
> your case, fails to give) that type a synonym.

Ha! Richard - thanks for the correction.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Seebs

11/5/2009 5:28:00 PM

0

On 2009-11-05, phaedrus <orion.osiris@virgin.net> wrote:
> The data in an array is stored in its elements.
> The data for a struct is stored in the member fields of a structure
> VARIABLE.
>
> Is that correct?

No.

struct foo { ... };

void *v = malloc(10 * sizeof(struct foo));

struct foo *p = v;

p[3] <-- a struct, but not a struct variable.

The only variables there are p and v. Neither is a struct. p is a pointer,
not a struct.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs

11/5/2009 6:40:00 PM

0

On 2009-11-05, Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
> Why shouldn't I? If I'm wrong, (certainly not excluded, see above) then
> I expect I'll be corrected by those who know better.

And this is why the status-weenies are idiots. They actually can't
conceive of you doing something in order to learn or develop, but which
could result in a temporary decline in other peoples' perception of you.

Scary, huh?

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Richard Heathfield

11/5/2009 7:39:00 PM

0

In <slrnhf6733.42i.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>, Seebs wrote:

> On 2009-11-05, Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> Why shouldn't I? If I'm wrong, (certainly not excluded, see above)
>> then I expect I'll be corrected by those who know better.
>
> And this is why the status-weenies are idiots. They actually can't
> conceive of you doing something in order to learn or develop, but
> which could result in a temporary decline in other peoples'
> perception of you.

Why would making a mistake result in a temporary decline in other
people's perception of you? I don't see that at all.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Seebs

11/5/2009 8:36:00 PM

0

On 2009-11-05, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Why would making a mistake result in a temporary decline in other
> people's perception of you? I don't see that at all.

That's a fascinating question, and frankly, I'm not sure I could answer it.

BUT!

Look at all the times the status weenies assert variously that people are
afraid to talk about things they don't know, afraid to answer questions,
afraid to post code for fear it might be criticized, and so on. There is
clearly a general pattern they presume, that demonstrating less-than-perfect
ability makes you look bad, so obviously, people ought to avoid doing this.

It's one of those epiphany things to realize that they genuinely think this
is a plausible motivation to ascribe to people. They really think stuff works
this way! (Perhaps more terrifying, there are large hunks of the world in
which it does to a greater or lesser extent...)

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Richard Heathfield

11/5/2009 9:49:00 PM

0

In <slrnhf6dss.bjf.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>, Seebs wrote:

> On 2009-11-05, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> Why would making a mistake result in a temporary decline in other
>> people's perception of you? I don't see that at all.
>
> That's a fascinating question, and frankly, I'm not sure I could
> answer it.

I don't see any logical reason for it. Failure to acknowledge a
mistake, or failure to learn from it, would be a different matter.
But the man[1] who can't make a mistake can't do anything.

> BUT!
>
> Look at all the times the status weenies assert [...]

Well, no thanks - I have better ways to spend my time.

<snip>

[1] I have it on impeccable authority that women don't make mistakes.
Not "can't" - don't.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Seebs

11/5/2009 9:49:00 PM

0

On 2009-11-05, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnhf6dss.bjf.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>,
> Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
> ...
>>It's one of those epiphany things to realize that they genuinely think this
>>is a plausible motivation to ascribe to people. They really think stuff works
>>this way!

> Two words: Drama Queen

I'd agree that those words are perhaps accurate, but I was trying to be more
charitable. While thinking about relationships in terms of status does
generally lead to drama, I don't think it's usually intentional.

>>(Perhaps more terrifying, there are large hunks of the world in
>>which it does to a greater or lesser extent...)

> Hmmm. That kinda disproves your whole thesis, don't it?

Nope.

My thesis is that not everyone is completely driven by status -- in
particular, that especially among engineering sorts, you're likely to see
a lot of people who are totally unconcerned about status.

It's like culture. Cultural norms vary. That's fine. Lots of different
cultures work. What doesn't work is insisting on interpreting people's
behavior according to the rules of another culture, because that's crazy.
Imposing a status narrative on many of the posters in comp.lang.c is every
bit as stupid as trying to describe a Japanese business meeting in terms
of what the behaviors and speech acts in question would mean if they'd
been performed at a business meeting involving a bunch of Texans.

I'm not disputing that status relationships do exist in some contexts, or
that some people care about them. It's quite obvious that some people
care very deeply about them. I'm just disputing the assertion that every
relationship anywhere is necessarily about status, or even has a status
component to it. Not all do. It's only one of the many ways humans interact,
and some people don't do it. Autism's the obvious extreme case, but there
are plenty of people who are physically capable of experiencing status
relationships, but who still don't view status as a significant priority.

In short, there are a lot of people out there who would rather look bad
being right than look good being wrong. I know it may sound strange or
mysterious, but trust me, the opposite sounds just as strange to them.

But again: I've never claimed that *no* status relationships existed -- only
that not *everything* is a status relationship. If you think that
acknowledging the existence of status relationships undermines this, you
really do need to work on your basic reading comprehension skills. Maybe
you could start with the Sesame Street episode that introduces "some
of the monsters, all of the monsters, none of the monsters".

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs

11/5/2009 10:14:00 PM

0

On 2009-11-05, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> Look at all the times the status weenies assert [...]

> Well, no thanks - I have better ways to spend my time.

I've found that a couple of hours spent saying "wait, they think WHAT?"
has been really rewarding in helping me deal with them when I have to.

It's like portability. Pays off eventually even if it's not obvious
why it should matter for a given project. :)

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!