Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Future of C Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:52:30 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <0231327b-9e28-46e4-9178-46c881a8dd91@googlegroups.com> <20180311161525.ac591de531b83d6b14b2cd43@gmail.com> <90236828-48d7-4ee5-9b86-4cedd0e29b5f@googlegroups.com> <3r7jne-t3h.ln1@gangtai.grep.be> <8e201938-ada4-42d9-8ae6-13b1047306e2@googlegroups.com> <69a08d82-b76a-4334-be63-20dc22f869bf@googlegroups.com> <0dcf08ee-d589-444c-8122-5310d95e80df@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="92a2d9eeb4da592746ec8273520d8182"; logging-data="19505"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2Myk0HZimSsUwxgV1bZMy" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:drnQMfvWhg4B/JXfzlLUZ8VHY+g= sha1:dUmf1d28v/ZqViS1SlreFrcRu/A= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:129017 Tim Rentsch writes: > Keith Thompson writes: >> Tim Rentsch writes: >> [...] >>> Apparently you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is >>> meant by defining behavior. >> >> Apparently my understanding differs from yours. Not the same thing. > > I'm sorry if you found my statement derogatory or offensive. I > didn't mean it to be; it was meant only as a statement of my > perception, not as a statement of fact. > > You may think I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is > meant by undefined behavior (or some other aspect of the C > standard, for that matter). If you do I hope you will say so, > and say so directly. I am interested to hear your perceptions, > even if I don't always share those perceptions. > > After giving the one statement you quoted, my posting went on to > say two things. First it gave a detailed explanation of what I > think the Standard says about defining behavior, and why. Second > it reviewed your previous comments with a point-by-point response > (and in one case rebuttal) for everything you said. You chose > not to respond to any of those comments. Would you mind if I ask > why you didn't? I put a fair amount of effort both into > organizing my thoughts and into putting those thoughts into > writing, an honest and sincere effort to explain and convey my > reasoning. I have responded to your comments. If you just > ignore mine, what conclusion do you think I should reach? I don't clearly remember the rest of your article, just because it's been a while since I read it. I didn't respond to it partly because I didn't have much to say about it, partly because I didn't expect any response to lead to anything useful, and partly because I was annoyed by what I perceived as an insult. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"