I don't understand what are you trying to say here. The standard requires that the function is declared in the same translation unit _before_ (i.e. above the point where) it is called. This requirement is violated by the code in question.
Wrong. C89/C90 (6.3.2.2) and C99 (6.5.2.2/6) clearly and explicitly state that if a function has a prototype that ends with an ellipsis (a variadic function) then calling this function without declaring it first leads to undefined behavior. Take the document and read it, if you know how to read.
End of discussion.
Well, it a matter of defining "illegal". The program is well-formed, but produces UB. That's what I meant by "illegal".
Whether it will display a diagnostic is a QoI issue.
Read it yourself, lamer. You don't need to declare an ordinary (non-variadic) functions. Variadic functions (as 'printf') need to be declared first. Otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
Firstly, 'void main' is illegal. 'main' is always 'int'.
Secondly, calling a variadic function ('printf' in this case) without declaring it first is illegal.
> We sent probes to Mars. And Venus. And beyond. And some of them still work. > We sent rovers to Mars. That still work. > We built several working space vehicles. > We space-walked. > We build a space station. And then we built another one. > We chased comets. And sent the collected materials back.
All of these were a "me-too" kind of things. Nothing else than attempts to repeat similar Russian achievements with purely political/PR oriented purposes. Most of the times NASA managed to do it _decades_ later than Russians. I don't really see the need to spend so much money on thing like this.
No, that's not the case. What I saw during Soviet times was not some kind of homemeade rip-off. These machines were obviously manufactured on a well-established production line. The mechanical complexity of some of those machines and the quality of workmanship, fit and finish was quite high, which actually suggested that these machines were not made in USSR but more likely made in one of Eastern European countries (like Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia etc.) or maybe even imported from some Western country. There's no chance that it was "not approved". These machines existed in large quantities during Soviet times only. Once the "Perestroika" started these machines disappeared rather quickly, because certain people decided that the room they occupy can be used in more "profitable" manner (to sell junk, for example).
Knock-offs you are mentioning in your message appear to be something from much later times.
It wast a "Russian" version of Itchy & Scratchy It was "Eastern European" version. I don't know what particular Eastern European country they were referring to (if any), but I think I remember seeing in my childhood some examples of such "conceptual" animation imported from maybe Czechoslovakia or Hungary or some other country. It doesn't even remotely resemble anything a Soviet/Russian animation school would produce, which BTW was making animated movies far suprassing in terms of artistic quality anything ever produced anywhere in the world.
Why does this article represent this machine as "only one approved" and such? During the Soviet era there was a relatively large number of various coin-operated arcade machines. Many of the were electronic-mechanical machines (like basketball machine that shoots an actual small rubber ball into actual baskets, or light-sensor-based "shooting range" machines), but later they were accompanied by computer-based videogame-type machines. Once again, there was great variety of these machines and sometimes it was possible to encounter in some rural city a machine that was never seen in the capital cities.
And no, they were not finished with wood. The were mostly metal and plastic.
I tried to search for 'filip 600' - a model RC sailplane I'm flying now, and new MS engine came up with several directly relevant pages that I have never seen on Google. So far - extremely impressive!
So, what's new here? They say _Microsoft_ sees the legal fees as the cost of doing busines? LOL! Did you just wake up after a 100 year long nap? EVERYONE sees these fees as just the cost of doing busines. Tactical and stretegical lawsuits have become the integral part of any business activity in the US (and the world) long time ago, regardless of whom they originate from. Microsoft is not different form anyone else here.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that they did not try to use Windows. This remark was included simply because remarks like that are required in any article representing Linux in positive light. They were either asked to say that "Windows was too unstable" or did that on their own accord. It doesn't really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand what are you trying to say here. The standard requires that the function is declared in the same translation unit _before_ (i.e. above the point where) it is called. This requirement is violated by the code in question.
Would you please clarify? What "it can" are talking about and what is not exactly declared?
Wrong. C89/C90 (6.3.2.2) and C99 (6.5.2.2/6) clearly and explicitly state that if a function has a prototype that ends with an ellipsis (a variadic function) then calling this function without declaring it first leads to undefined behavior. Take the document and read it, if you know how to read. End of discussion.
Well, it a matter of defining "illegal". The program is well-formed, but produces UB. That's what I meant by "illegal". Whether it will display a diagnostic is a QoI issue.
Read it yourself, lamer. You don't need to declare an ordinary (non-variadic) functions. Variadic functions (as 'printf') need to be declared first. Otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
Firstly, 'void main' is illegal. 'main' is always 'int'. Secondly, calling a variadic function ('printf' in this case) without declaring it first is illegal.
> We got to the moon. And back. Multiple times
No argument, that was a great achievement.
> We sent probes to Mars. And Venus. And beyond. And some of them still work.
> We sent rovers to Mars. That still work.
> We built several working space vehicles.
> We space-walked.
> We build a space station. And then we built another one.
> We chased comets. And sent the collected materials back.
All of these were a "me-too" kind of things. Nothing else than attempts to repeat similar Russian achievements with purely political/PR oriented purposes. Most of the times NASA managed to do it _decades_ later than Russians. I don't really see the need to spend so much money on thing like this.
Why English? There are many other languages in the world. English-handling skill is not a measure of intellect.
No, that's not the case. What I saw during Soviet times was not some kind of homemeade rip-off. These machines were obviously manufactured on a well-established production line. The mechanical complexity of some of those machines and the quality of workmanship, fit and finish was quite high, which actually suggested that these machines were not made in USSR but more likely made in one of Eastern European countries (like Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia etc.) or maybe even imported from some Western country. There's no chance that it was "not approved". These machines existed in large quantities during Soviet times only. Once the "Perestroika" started these machines disappeared rather quickly, because certain people decided that the room they occupy can be used in more "profitable" manner (to sell junk, for example). Knock-offs you are mentioning in your message appear to be something from much later times.
It wast a "Russian" version of Itchy & Scratchy It was "Eastern European" version. I don't know what particular Eastern European country they were referring to (if any), but I think I remember seeing in my childhood some examples of such "conceptual" animation imported from maybe Czechoslovakia or Hungary or some other country. It doesn't even remotely resemble anything a Soviet/Russian animation school would produce, which BTW was making animated movies far suprassing in terms of artistic quality anything ever produced anywhere in the world.
Why does this article represent this machine as "only one approved" and such? During the Soviet era there was a relatively large number of various coin-operated arcade machines. Many of the were electronic-mechanical machines (like basketball machine that shoots an actual small rubber ball into actual baskets, or light-sensor-based "shooting range" machines), but later they were accompanied by computer-based videogame-type machines. Once again, there was great variety of these machines and sometimes it was possible to encounter in some rural city a machine that was never seen in the capital cities. And no, they were not finished with wood. The were mostly metal and plastic.
I tried to search for 'filip 600' - a model RC sailplane I'm flying now, and new MS engine came up with several directly relevant pages that I have never seen on Google. So far - extremely impressive!
So, what's new here? They say _Microsoft_ sees the legal fees as the cost of doing busines? LOL! Did you just wake up after a 100 year long nap? EVERYONE sees these fees as just the cost of doing busines. Tactical and stretegical lawsuits have become the integral part of any business activity in the US (and the world) long time ago, regardless of whom they originate from. Microsoft is not different form anyone else here.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that they did not try to use Windows. This remark was included simply because remarks like that are required in any article representing Linux in positive light. They were either asked to say that "Windows was too unstable" or did that on their own accord. It doesn't really matter.