Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: bart again (UCX64)
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 17:46:46 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <86o7edu455.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <b74c088d-09e6-4842-8b6c-1921d68154c7n@googlegroups.com> <20230901135123.702@kylheku.com> <uctlpv$17t5$1@dont-email.me> <878r9p7b13.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <ucu0tf$2mht$1@dont-email.me> <20230901175635.91@kylheku.com> <ucv4e6$d0c9$1@dont-email.me> <ucvna1$fb08$7@dont-email.me> <ud00bc$grer$1@dont-email.me> <ud23ls$um2u$1@dont-email.me> <ud2eod$10jv5$1@dont-email.me> <ud4604$1cbam$1@dont-email.me> <ud4a6a$1d4cd$1@dont-email.me> <ud4rbl$1h1t4$1@dont-email.me> <87h6o95znv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86jzt5pgho.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87zg214c1j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <uj9jnq$373ka$1@dont-email.me> <87sf53dvmd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <861qcmxi7t.fsf@linuxsc.com> <uje7op$n7s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0f191f7864c76e6d27a3acf99e7b166c"; logging-data="3397467"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9jT00qHuE5fEvpQTH/qhUEgNjca0Qiug="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7lA8mZoenbFAhpc6pztlkZIL1Ro= sha1:sMcRWKyIEZ2uqSejBsv5cFOzQlM=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:379641

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> ...
>
>>>> On 11/18/23 08:44, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>> What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?
>>>
>>> Yes, that is the question I was referring to.  [...]
>>
>> I did answer.  If you don't like my answer that's your
>> problem, not mine.
>
> I saw a response, several of them in fact, but none of those responses
> contained an answer.  An answer would identify the relevant syntax rule
> or constraint - none of your responses identified any syntax error or
> constraint violation.  All I saw was responses that gave bad excuses for
> not bothering to answer the question.

I suggest you look up the word "answer" in an English dictionary
rather than a James Kuyper dictionary.  I did answer.