Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Two different Results between C and C++ Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:59:53 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 41 Message-ID: <87ftadednq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <8c6495f9-6139-464e-ac8f-4eac27a92776@googlegroups.com> <60d0f73c-8588-4673-a48d-e5c4cc726196@googlegroups.com> <87blm1wam0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86d05skg6z.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87tuz4gt4c.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <5efa13c5.237203@news.xs4all.nl> <875zb9g2gw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <5efa5fb9.19680734@news.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="86c5bcc312ff2eec33d652d8758f97e1"; logging-data="6285"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3gv5M5oRHwrqWUvOqo8mb" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:85GkRXgQSMVUTuXw45QpS7Oup5s= sha1:WELorqz2jeVil5+avFcdpfxwBOQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:153005 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: >> > You're even more wrong, then, because almost all real-world C programs >> > are written without pandering to C++'s neuroses. I'll grant you that >> > most of them might be munged into legal C++ programs by expending the >> > small but ridiculous effort of hauling them through Bjarne Mungler >> > Automatic 2000, but at that point they won't be C programs worth the >> > name any more. Much like you can take Arthur Conan Doyle, run him >> > through Hollywood, and get Elementary; which shits on Doyle's legacy. >> > It's small effort, yes. But the result is not what you started out with. >> >> You agree that it's a small effort. Doesn't that mean you agree with my >> original statement? Here it is again: >> >> But almost all programs that are legal C but not legal C++ can be >> made into legal C++ with a small effort. >> >> At no time did I suggest it would be a good idea. > > If you had added _that_, I would not have disagreed. It is the crucial > point. It may be crucial to the point you want to make. It was not relevant to the statement I made. > Yes, there is a considerable overlap between C and C++. All second-year > programmers know that. It takes a professional to learn that very little > in that overlap is useful or interesting, and we should not encourage > beginning programmers to believe that casting malloc() or relying on the > sizes of character constants is a good idea. Agreed, but it's not what I was talking about. I made a correct statement. You disagreed with it. But now that we're in agreement on the facts (if not about who said what), I suggest we can drop this. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */