Scott Mcmahan vs Laurence Kirby [英] Scott Mcmahan vs Laurence Kirby
问题描述
论坛中似乎有一个错误，它不会让你回复超过60天的
主题:(
无论如何1999年10月29日这是一次有趣的交流：
劳伦斯柯比写道：
There seems to be a bug in the forum that it won''t let you reply to
topics older than 60 days :(
Anyway, there''s this interesting exchange from 29 Oct 1999:
Lawrence Kirby writes:
Scott McMahan写道：
Scott McMahan writes:
现在不是ANSI C的安装基础，因为C99标准
会在葡萄藤上枯萎吗？C很好足够的功能，以及
已经稳定了大约10年，代码库已经达到了b $ b b饱和点。人们真的会改变到不同的C现在？
Isn''t the installed base of ANSI C so great now that the C99 standard
will just wither on the vine? C is good enough for what it does, and
has been stable for about 10 years, and the code base has reached the
saturation point. Are people really going to change to a different C now?
非常多，新标准包含许多有用的功能。
一旦C99编译器变得普通，我期望在未来2 - 3年内发生的很多新代码将开始使用它来编写。
然而编译器可能会支持C90 f或者某个时候。
Very much so, the new standard contains a lot of useful features.
Once C99 compilers become commonplace which I would expect to happen in
the next 2-3 years a lot of new code will start to be written using it.
However compilers will probably support C90 for some time to come.
时间已经证明这些人中的一个是先知！ C99是
跛脚鸭的化身。
Time has proved one of these men a prophet! C99 is the embodiment of a
lame duck.
推荐答案
rb ******** @ mailinator.com 写道：
rb********@mailinator.com wrote:
那里似乎是论坛中的一个错误，它不会让你回复
超过60天的话题:(
There seems to be a bug in the forum that it won''t let you reply to
topics older than 60 days :(
那个这不是一个错误，这是一个功能，因为谷歌集团
的人回复了多年的消息，好像他们是新的消息。
Brian
That''s not a bug, that''s a feature that was added because Google Group
people were replying to years-old messages as if they were new ones.
Brian
rb **** ****@mailinator.com 说：
论坛中似乎有一个错误，它不会让你回复
主题超过60天:(
There seems to be a bug in the forum that it won''t let you reply to
topics older than 60 days :(
这不是一个错误 - 它是一个功能！： - ）
说真的，如果人们养成回复的习惯来自七年前的看似随意的
文章，没有在
时间内流行的语境可以方便地获取（毕竟，我们不是全部*使用谷歌，
你知道吗，这个小组会变得更少*有用。
但过去的偶尔爆炸可能很有趣。
That''s not a bug - it''s a feature! :-)
Seriously, if people were to make a habit of replying to seemingly random
articles from seven years ago, without the context that prevailed at the
time being conveniently available (after all, we don''t *all* use Google,
you know), this group would become much *less* useful.
But the occasional blast from the past can be fun.
无论如何，这是1999年10月29日这个有趣的交流：
劳伦斯柯比写道：
Anyway, there''s this interesting exchange from 29 Oct 1999:
Lawrence Kirby writes:
> Scott McMahan写道：
>Scott McMahan writes:
>现在C99标准不是ANSI C的安装基础
会在葡萄藤上枯萎吗？ C足以满足它的要求，并且已经稳定了大约10年，并且代码库已达到饱和点。现在人们真的要换到不同的C吗？
>Isn''t the installed base of ANSI C so great now that the C99 standard
will just wither on the vine? C is good enough for what it does, and
has been stable for about 10 years, and the code base has reached the
saturation point. Are people really going to change to a different C
now?
非常好，新标准包含许多有用的功能。
一旦C99编译器变得司空见惯，我希望在下一个中发生... 3年后，许多新代码将开始使用它编写。
然而，编译器可能会支持C90一段时间。
Very much so, the new standard contains a lot of useful features.
Once C99 compilers become commonplace which I would expect to happen in
the next 2-3 years a lot of new code will start to be written using it.
However compilers will probably support C90 for some time to come.
Lawrence Kirby几乎没错。然而，在那个场合，他确实看起来好像是......好吧，不对。
Lawrence Kirby is Hardly Ever Wrong. On that occasion, however, he does
appear to have been wr... well, not right.
时间已证明其中一个这些人是先知！ C99是
跛脚鸭的化身。
Time has proved one of these men a prophet! C99 is the embodiment of a
lame duck.
Nah。跛脚鸭可能有点笨拙，但至少他们可以飞。
-
理查德希思菲尔德
" Usenet是一个奇怪的地方 - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
电子邮件：rjh在上述域名中， - www。
Nah. Lame ducks might waddle a bit awkwardly, but at least they can fly.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
在文章< 11 ******* ***************@51g2000cwl.googlegroups。 com>，
< rb ******** @ mailinator.comwrote：
In article <11**********************@51g2000cwl.googlegroups. com>,
<rb********@mailinator.comwrote:
> C99是一只跛脚鸭。
>C99 is the embodiment of a lame duck.
当然跛脚鸭已经体现了吗？
- Richard
-
考虑在一些字母表中需要多达32个字符
- 1963年的X3.4。
Surely lame ducks are already embodied?
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
这篇关于Scott Mcmahan vs Laurence Kirby的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
