| On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:27:14PM +0100, Brian Foster wrote:
| > 2nd pedantic quibble --- [ main() ] is not a [ standard
| > conformat ] definition of main() [ ... ] the two valid forms
| > are int main(void) and int main(int, char **) [ ... ]
| > and NO, it is not true that foo() and foo(void) mean the
| > same thing; in C, they do not. [ ... ]
| Well, I didn't say that it was the same thing, I was talking
| about return types. *scratches head*
I concur, you were. I also elucidated those comments from
my reply, leaving only an outline of the definition of main().
I then made several (pedantic) comments on the form I quoted,
but did not and do not challenge your correct description of
in other words, my guess is a closer reading would help.
the head-scratching reply (mostly understandably) assumed
I was commenting on what was originally said, not (somewhat
mysteriously) on the parts I had quoted. (and I don't
believe my quotes were out of context? apologies if they
were, that was not intentional!)
| > I have not read the patent in question, nor have I read this
| > thread very closely. but it did strike me that all(?) of the
| > code posted so far seems to assume a location in memory has
| > exactly one address. i.e., the possibility of the memory
| > being double-mapped (as one example, to two different virtual
| > addresses in the same process) is not handled.
| Hmmmmm, I'm not so certain a language-level operator could ever
| genuinely cope with this, a system-call [ may be needed ].
I concur with yer basic observation.
but I can think of strange ways around the problem.
leaving aside hardware assist (e.g., an instruction) or
languages sans pointers (e.g., Java), it's unknown to me
if the claim is for a language-level operator, or what
language(s) said operator could be used in, or if calling
the hypothetical function _is_ the operator?
it is that last possibly which is not so silly.
lexically and semantically in many(?) languages, a function
call-return is a binary operator: one operand is the
function to be called, the other is the (list of) arguments.
(and please don't say you need to test the return value,
making two operators; you don't, at least if the function's
definition is sufficiently demented --- an exercise left to
anyways, please allow me please to clarify: I concur with
what Colm said in the posting I commented on, and also with
Colm's remarks above. I am extremely skeptical of software
patents. and at face value, the patent under discussion is
Experienced (20+ yrs) kernel/software Eng: | Brian Foster Montpellier,
• Unix, embedded, &tc; • Linux; • doc; | blf at utvinternet.ie FRANCE
• IDL, automated testing, process, &tc. | Stop E$$o (ExxonMobile)!
Résumé (CV) http://www.blf.utvinternet.ie | http://www.stopesso.com
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!