Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #387626
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? |
| Date | 2024-08-17 18:22 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <868qwufwvi.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <v9l95b$10ogv$1@dont-email.me> <87sev5s51s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v9nn5q$1f3op$1@dont-email.me> <86jzgfgqki.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v9qlco$1vqpa$1@dont-email.me> |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 17/08/2024 15:41, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> OK. So why do you agree with this: >>> >>>> C call-by-value call-by-reference >>>> =============== ================= >>>> (pointer argument) F(p) (disallowed) >>> >>> What is 'pointer argument' here? >> >> Try thinking harder. Everyone else understood. > > I could equally say that everyone understood what was meant by > implicit cast'. It would be a useful exercise for you to compare and contrast those two statements, listing their similarities and differences. > But here you really have to explain what you mean by a pointer > argument, since there is no reason why such a type can't be passed > by reference. > > Lacking such an explanation, I'd have to say still that > 'disallowed' is generally incorrect. What is incorrect is your understanding of what was meant. Let me elaborate on that. Some of the people who post here are interested in listening, and usually make an effort to understand in cases where a first reading leaves them confused. Others, not so much. More generally, there is a spectrum of interest/effort, with people who make a large effort at one end, and people who make little or not effort at the other end. Somewhat paradoxically, it is the people who are most intent on listening who are the ones most worth listening to. Conversely, people who don't make much of an effort to listen and understand are usually not worth listening to. You are definitely closer to the no effort end of the spectrum than you are to the other end. You are much more focused on what you want to say than you are in what the other person is saying. That's a lot of the reason people dismiss your comments. It also reduces the chance that you will get useful responses. Your first response up above is a case in point. It's typical of you. Given this entirely predictable reaction, I have very little incentive to try to explain anything, because I don't think you're going to hear the explanation. I don't expect any of the above to change the way you act, but just in case, here is a suggestion. When you read something that seems not to make sense, ask yourself a question: What might have been meant here so that this statement is right? If you don't look for alternative interpretations you won't ever find any. On the flip side, the more often you look for alternative interpretations and the more effort you put into doing so, the more likely you are to have meaningful interactions with other people in the group, unlike the meaningless interactions you usually have.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:39 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:35 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 14:43 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 12:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-17 16:34 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 16:56 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 01:43 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 13:48 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-15 15:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 17:08 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 01:08 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:10 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 02:18 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:38 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:28 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 11:40 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:17 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 11:42 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:31 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 00:54 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 18:03 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 09:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-19 12:22 +0300
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 14:14 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 21:18 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 10:56 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-17 12:26 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 11:38 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 15:19 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 07:41 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 18:07 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 18:22 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-18 12:35 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 01:01 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 01:57 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 02:30 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 12:29 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-20 00:33 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-20 12:42 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 10:04 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:45 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:51 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 14:36 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 23:22 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-15 23:29 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 01:46 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 18:21 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-08-16 03:37 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:14 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 14:52 -0700
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-17 19:07 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 12:53 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 09:46 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 05:05 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 14:41 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-18 14:00 +0100
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 18:01 +0200
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 14:25 -0500
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-18 22:23 +0000
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 12:40 -0500
csiph-web