C 6.00 Bug List

[Dave P. Schaumann]

In article <1991Feb20.213936.441 at mojsys.com> joevl at mojsys.com (Joe Vlietstra) writes:
>>In article <26758 at uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jdb at reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) asks:
>>I just purchased Microsoft C 6.00 (tag on the box is labeled C6.00)
>>[...]Is there a bug list [...]
>
>In article <1991Feb19.081101.19806 at qualcomm.com> antonio at qualcom.qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio) replies:
>>The bug list for C 6.00 is so long that it just isn't worth reading.
>>[...]
>
>Refering to the above articles, dave at cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) lectures:
>>[...]
>>This message was posted to comp.lang.c where it has absolutely *no* revelence.
>I understand Mr. Schaumann's concern about a language newsgroup
>drifting into MS-DOS topics.  (Try reading comp.lang.pascal.)
>But in this instance he's chopped too fine.

Possibly so.  I guess I'm willing to admit that a single post to comp.lang.c
on this topic wouldn't be too horrible, especially if the follow-ups were
directed to the appropriate machine-specific group.

>[...]
>/* Flame Guard On */
>Although comp.lang.c primary topic is the C language itself,
>I believe it is apropriate to post articles on closely related
>subjects.  (And sometimes, not so closely related subjects.)
>The process of newsgroup formation and evolution precludes
>rigid guidelines.

Perhaps.  But newsgroup evolution does not preclude the attemt to guide its
direction.  Interestingly, I only received mail from 3 individuals regarding
this post.  1 person suggested we create comp.lang.c.msdos (or whatever name
you like).  I don't think this will  solve the problem.  There is already
comp.sys.ibm.programmer (or something very like that), and if that group is
overflowing with C questions, a more proper new group would be something
like comp.sys.ibm.programmer.c.

Another person claimed I should simply use my 'n' & 'k' keys to avoid such
posts, and it was unreasonable for me to complain about the large amount
of bandwidth that has no useful information to me.  I guess he also holds
that it is unreasonable to expect  posters to choose appropriate newsgroups.

The final person argued much as you do, that a certain amount of machine-
specific traffic on comp.lang.c is appropriate.  Which I suppose is true,
but I would hold that followups should be appropriately directed and rigorously
followed.

Finally, I would like to say that I really do not enjoy playing net.cop for
comp.lang.c, and I'll have nothing more to post on this topic.

	"and there was much rejoicing..."	_Monty Python & the Holy Grail_

>Joe Vlietstra        | Checked Daily:  ...!uunet!mojsys!joevl

-- 
Dave Schaumann      | Is this question undecidable?
dave at cs.arizona.edu |