Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 13:55:03 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <86wm1uqudk.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me> <vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me> <vtj97r$1i3v3$1@dont-email.me> <vtl166$36p6b$1@dont-email.me> <vtlcg0$3f46a$2@dont-email.me> <20250415153419.00004cf7@yahoo.com> <86h62078i8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250504180833.00000906@yahoo.com> <86plggzilx.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vvnsvt$3k1mu$1@dont-email.me> <86ldr4yx0x.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vvpmm2$3dhl$1@dont-email.me> <vvpsji$4jht$1@dont-email.me> <vvr5mg$l85c$1@dont-email.me> <vvt2tg$14otk$2@dont-email.me> <1000cs3$2234m$1@dont-email.me> <87sel8nqid.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1001t53$2er1t$1@dont-email.me> <1003mig$2uarc$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 21:55:08 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98273b996b3933e8851c8df2acf5537d"; logging-data="186750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wEf5ORDhika9EiypNpkDoZ9ylGCJo3gk="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bZIpgsU1W2kJ9MyBoWhooyLqeEI= sha1:2ZV0F7Sdkf6+tKdYvJrtSVunHSY=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:396232

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

> On 5/14/25 07:00, David Brown wrote:
> ...
>
>> My interpretation matches yours.  I can't find any indication in the
>> standard of a definition of what an "array" actually means
>
> This is a problem with all of the derived types (6.2.5p25).  There are
> definitions of the terms "array type", "structure type:, "union type",
> "function type", and "pointer type", but no definitions of the things
> that those types are types of.  My interpretation is that for each of
> those object types, "X" is short-hand for "an object of X type".
> [...]

That interpretation is not consistent with usage in the standard.
There are at least dozens of places, and probably hundreds of
places, where the C standard refers to pointers, structs, or unions,
but where there is no object.  An easy example is the address-of
operator, &.  The expression &<something> gives a pointer value, but
just by itself there is no pointer object.