[Meta-posting, and fairly long too.  You may want to skip it.]


> > Followups are directed to comp.std.c for the same reason as before.
>
> Based on your previous posting, there shouldn't even *be* a comp.std.c++!

Clearly the subject matter of comp.std.c++ does not yet include questions
of the form "What does the C++ standard say about this?", while that of
comp.std.c does include questions like "What does the C standard say about
this?".  But the latter questions are not the only ones appropriate to the
latter group, and the supposed conclusion that I would abolish comp.std.c++
is silly.  The group comp.std.c existed years before there was a C standard
-- even before the Great Renaming when comp.* was created as a hierarchy.

> This discussion definately belongs in comp.std.c++ because it effects the
> upcomming standard for C++.  Be reasonable when you change the follow-ups!

The original posting specifically asked what the C standard said
about the statement in question.  Questions of the form "what does the
C standard say about this?" do belong in comp.std.c only.  It is true
that most, if not all, legitimate comp.std.c postings are also within
the broader subject area of comp.lang.c, but on Usenet one should always
try to choose a newsgroup with as specific a relevant topic as possible.

The poster has since explained that he thought the relevance to comp.std.c++
was obvious -- that the real question was "What does the C standard say
about this, and what should the C++ standard say?"  This was actually not
at all obvious -- and indeed, most if not all of the followup discussion
has *been* about the question actually asked.

The act of starting a thread in more than about two newsgroups, without
redirecting followups and without giving specific reasons why each group
is appropriate, is usually a mark of someone who has not given much
thought to their posting.  This is particularly true for crosspostings to
"hardly ever correct" group combinations such as comp.std.c and comp.lang.c.
It is also "hardly ever correct" to start a crossposted thread without
*saying* that you are doing it -- too many news readers configure their
newsreaders so that the Newsgroups line is not displayed, and then post
followups in which they never look at the Newsgroups line.  They think they
are only posting to one group, and then wonder why someone else has a
different view of the world.

Threads that continue in more than one or two newsgroups almost always
drift off topic or focus onto subject matter that is relevant to only a
subset of the groups.  Consequently, even if you do feel it is right to
post the initial article of a thread in a larger number of groups, you
almost always want to restrict followups to one or two groups.  In this
particular case, even if the original 4-group crossposting was appropriate,
I can't imagine why followups should have gone outside comp.std.c and
comp.std.c++ at most.

> People who are following this discussion may only be reading one of the
> four news groups that it is cross-posted to.  I, for example, don't read
> comp.std.c and I am very interested in this discussion because it does
> apply to C++ ...

Then subscribe to comp.std.c and read only the one thread.  This is
exactly why a person who does redirect followups should point out that
it's being done: so that interested readers don't lose the thread.

If I seemed rude in correcting the original poster, or in this article,
then I apologize for my manner.  But not for my advice, either in text
here or in the Followup-To lines (which *are* only advisory, remember).
No, I am not the net police.  But I have been on Usenet for more than
ten years now, and in these matters I generally know what I'm talking
about.  In fact, I consider that everyone should *already know* everything
I've said here before starting to post, and that a reminder of these basic
principles can therefore be brief.  And that inappropriate crosspostings
are in themselves at least mildly impolite.

Incidentally, while I'm on the topic of net politeness, I'd like to
justify another regular practice of mine that some people have taken
offense at.  When I quote someone's posting (or just refer to it, as
with the words "the original poster" above) to point out an error or
inadequacy in what they said, I usually don't mention them by name.
The reason is that I don't want to be seen as criticizing the *person*,
but only the statement made.  If the reader wants to know whose article
I'm referring to, they can generally find it by following the thread
backwards.  Some people consider I'm "denying them credit"; I consider
that words I quote anonymously are usually those that nobody would *want*
credit for -- actually, that's an exaggeration, but it makes my point --
and that in any case the important thing is *that* the proper conclusion
is reached, not *who* reaches it or fails to.

Somewhat against my better judgement, followups to this article are NOT
redirected to a single group.  It would probably have to be a news.*
group, and someone would only complain and move it right back here.
--
Mark Brader, msb@sq.com | "Anyone who can handle a needle convincingly can make
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto  |  us see a thread which is not there." --E.H. Gombrich

This article is in the public domain.