Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Bart's Language Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 17:12:01 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 26 Message-ID: <878qea2plq.fsf@example.invalid> References: <87a59fs2xm.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86wmb58mi6.fsf@linuxsc.com> <877c35pa37.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86seciqtxs.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 01:12:02 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f871b5ffe12a84f74a2becf62529d59"; logging-data="288036"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/oa5A/tSsYZEv/rGUF6X/" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BVaOCQPCgdSwRt9bJUFjMVRxqlA= sha1:4T71yLl57JIifPzNEDR97/kuC0I= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:396240 Tim Rentsch writes: > Keith Thompson writes: >> Tim Rentsch 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 */