Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #396240
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Bart's Language |
| Date | 2026-01-06 17:12 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <878qea2plq.fsf@example.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <vri6co$26v8m$2@paganini.bofh.team> <87a59fs2xm.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86wmb58mi6.fsf@linuxsc.com> <877c35pa37.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86seciqtxs.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]
>>> The program can be rejected, but not because of the rule about
>>> terminating a translation. The program can be rejected because
>>> the program is not strictly conforming, and implementations are
>>> not required to accept programs that are not strictly conforming.
>>
>> I disagree, but we've gone over this before with no resolution.
>
> Have you ever offered reasoning to explain your belief, or
> did you give just an unsupported conclusion? Can you explain
> the reasoning that underlies your disagreement?
I believe I have. I'm not interested in resurrecting that old
debate. Past experience indicates that no meaningful resolution
will be reached.
I'll note that you've posted a followup to something I wrote more
than eight months ago. That's one of several reasons I'm not
interested in a discussion.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
Re: Bart's Language Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 14:04 -0800 Re: Bart's Language Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 17:12 -0800
csiph-web