I genuinely don't understand any of your arguments in your latest post: my bad.
Humorous? Not as such, no.
"I ceded I got details wrong in this case." No you did not. And even if you had, the details you got wrong entirely invalidate your argument.
"Speaking from someone who didn't even have a clue about what Dr Loser was getting at with that C preprocessor directive bit." (A comment from JoeMonco.)
It most definitely was not a challenge for you to use the preprocessor. Can't you read? Do you care? Here is what I actually said (refer specifically to point 4):
(1) Arguments ignored. Check. That's a Linux fanboi staple.
(2) No documentation. Check. That's a Linux fanboi staple.
(3) Unnecessary dependency (in this case, C99). Check. That's a Linux fanboi staple.
(4) Totally irrelevant use of a toy (in this case, the preprocessor). Check. That's a Linux fanboi staple.
(4) Even more irrelevant undef at the end. OK, fair enough. Not a Linux fanboi staple. Sure smacks of Asperger's syndrome to me, though.
(5) Smarter than the average bear: all this playing around with character sets? Check. That's a Linux fanboi staple.
(6) Ignoring other cultures, any one of which is unlikely to use the same character set? Check. That's a Linux fanboi staple.
(1) is a joke, and since you go to such amazing lengths to simulate humour, you might appreciate it.
(2) is not invalidated by some pathetic one-line comment. The code is so ridiculously convoluted that it demands documentation.
(3) re C99. Here's your "documentation":
//Yes, I was getting tired of making it so simple. // Here's a hint. Get yourself a good Linux distro and use `` gcc -std=c99 '' so that the above works out for you.
Sure looks like the Church Lady Dance of Superiority to me. I accept your humorous observation, and back at you: were you aware that almost every C compiler in the world (including several available on good Microsoft distros) has a similar switch for C99?
Did you spot that JoeMonco was mocking you for using this simply so that you can write a for loop with an internal type declaration? I mean, what sort of idiot would consider this either funny or sensible?
(5) & (6) Can't be bothered. I still stand by these points.
Here is another one you missed (and related to ctype.h): Monopolists are so bad, that to fully define one, you have to "tolower" them even when you think you are done and it can't get worse.
>> Good grief. That's so utterly stupid that I can't even think of a decent response.
I'm cheating here. (Go on, it's funny!) Those two paragraphs are not really connected.
On the other hand -- and it's a direct quote from your latest post -- my comment is equally valid in this instance. What on earth do you mean? I didn't miss it. It's not related. The question of monopoly is an irrelevance. Given that irrelevance, there are several perfectly serviceable definitions of a monopoly. Directly using tolower() isn't going to help you, and as a metaphor it is astonishingly pointless. Are we done? Can it get worse?
What on earth do you mean?
I'm going to repeat this, for your own good. You are not now, and never will be, a C programmer. You have no logical facility, no grasp of the language, no understanding of the principles of software, no honesty, no shame, no sense of humour, and, as JoeMonco says, no discipline.
The sheer amount of disconnected and badly-presented bilge that you've poured out in the last six pages or so leads me to think that you are best positioned for a high-level job in Marketing. Go for it! You will make a lot of money, and do minimal amounts of damage.