Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #379514 > unrolled thread

Re: bart again (UCX64)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: bart again (UCX64) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-11-18 00:57 -0500
    Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 05:44 -0800
      Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-11-19 00:25 -0800
        Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 13:08 -0800
          Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-12-25 17:45 -0800
            Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-25 21:12 -0800
            Re: bart again (UCX64) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-12-27 20:14 -0500
              Re: bart again (UCX64) Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-27 23:22 -0300
                Re: bart again (UCX64) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-28 04:25 +0100
              Re: bart again (UCX64) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-28 04:22 +0100
                Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-23 14:58 -0800
                  Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 15:59 -0800
                    Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-24 10:30 +0100
                      Re: bart again (UCX64) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-24 11:57 -0500
                        Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-24 11:26 -0800
                          Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-14 21:14 -0800
                            Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-14 22:29 -0800
                              Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-19 17:53 -0800
                        Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-25 09:15 +0100
                          Re: bart again (UCX64) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-25 07:16 -0800
                            Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-26 09:20 +0100
              Re: bart again (UCX64) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-12-28 09:12 +0100
                Re: bart again (UCX64) Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2023-12-28 16:31 +0800
              Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-23 15:06 -0800
        Re: bart again (UCX64) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-11-19 19:03 -0500
          Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-12-25 17:46 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#380971

On 25/01/2024 16:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 24/01/2024 17:57, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 1/24/24 04:30, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 24/01/2024 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> For the record, Keith's summary here is completely correct as far as I
>>>> remember this thread. Tim's does not match what he or others wrote. I
>>>> do not recall ever seeing any kind of "withdrawal". It's clearly
>>>> possible that I missed said withdrawal, or that I have forgotten it,
>>>> but if there has been such a withdrawal it must have been so subtle
>>>> that no one else in the thread saw it. I'm sure that anyone else would
>>>> have brought it to Keith's attention long ago. (I certainly would have.)
>>>>
>>>> And if Tim had been interested in communicating clearly, he could have
>>>> repeated the withdrawal and given a reference to the first posting of
>>>> it, instead of floundering with attempted definitions of the word
>>>> "answer".
>>> On 2023-09-04 18:42:14 Keith said:
>>>> It does have undefined behavior, ... but it does not
>>>> violate any syntax rule or constraint.
>>> On 2023-09-04 21:16:01 Tim responded:
>>>> I say it does.
>>> On 2023-09-04 21:57:44 Keith responded:
>>>> What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?
>>> A long discussion occurred, during which Tim repeatedly failed to
>>> identify a syntax rule or constraint violated by that code.
>>> On 2023-10-26 11:56:12, Tim wrote:
>>>> I realized at some point that my earlier statement was not
>>>> understood the way I meant it. Rather than try to go back and
>>>> unwind the miscommunication, I decided to just drop it. I
>>>> withdraw my earlier statement. Okay?
>>> Now, I cannot imagine (and as normal, Tim has refused to explain)
>>> what
>>> meaning he intended by saying "I say it does." that would make "it does"
>>> correct. But he did in fact withdraw that comment.
>>
>> Do you remember a reference or a date for that withdrawal message?
> 
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:55:51 -0700
> Message-ID: <867cn92xa0.fsf@linuxsc.com>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/O-V_X7Cfc6I/m/j1oHoyo5AgAJ>
> [...]
> 

Thanks.  A key paragraph from that (written by Tim) was :

"""
I realized at some point that my earlier statement was not
understood the way I meant it.  Rather than try to go back and
unwind the miscommunication, I decided to just drop it.  I
withdraw my earlier statement.  Okay?
"""

The rest of his post can (IMHO) be paraphrased by "It's all a 
misunderstanding because people are different and make different 
assumptions.  This is all your fault for being tone deaf and rude" - 
directed at Keith.


And I can see that Keith, James and I all replied to Tim's post - 
clearly we read it (or at least most of it).  I can't speak for anyone 
else, obviously, but I had forgotten about this branch of the thread. 
It was three months ago, and I rarely remember the details of old 
disagreements on the Internet.  (If I tried to remember them all, my 
memory would have no room for important things like the intricacies of 
outdated microcontrollers that I haven't used for decades :-) )


If I have not misread the timings of the posts here, this has been 
followed /three times/ by a pattern of people expressing frustration at 
Tim's lack of a useful answer or explanation, then a month's pause when 
everyone put it behind us, then Tim drags it back into the light again 
with another unhelpful waffle post.


I am still left with a curiosity about which rules Tim thought the code 
violated, even if he no longer thinks they apply (his opinions on C are 
always worth reading, when he expresses them appropriately).  It would 
have faded away as one of life's great unanswered questions, if Tim 
hadn't kept resurrecting this thread!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379654

On 28/12/2023 02:14, James Kuyper wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You have not so far answered the question.  An answer would
>>> have included [...]
>>
>> I suggest you look up the word "answer" in an English
>> dictionary.  I did answer.
> 
> I was somewhat disappointed when I did look it up. A question is a
> request for information, and I had understood an answer to be a response
> to that question which provided the requested information. The answer
> could be erroneous, or deliberately wrong or misleading, but it was not
> an answer unless it at least pretended to provide the requested
> information. I was familiar with the common practice of saying that, for
> instance, "The guard asked 'Who goes there?', and the the commando
> answered with a knife to the guard's heart.", but I always considered
> that calling something like that an "answer" was a kind of joke. I might
> have imagined that a dictionary would provide a more general definition
> of "answer" that included such things, but I expected that there would
> also be a more restricted definition that excluded any response that did
> not provide the requested information.
> However, that's not what I found. For instance, Wiktionary defines an
> answer as "something said or done in reaction to a statement or
> question." I saw similar definitions in several other online
> dictionaries. Therefore, ANYTHING you do when reacting to a question
> qualifies as an answer, whether it be a lie, or a non-sequitur, or a
> blow to the head.

I often like to look at the etymology of words.  It doesn't always help 
to understand them, but I like to get an idea of where they came from 
anyway.  "Answer" appears to come from "anti" and "swear" - a 
"counter-oath", or response to sworn testimony.  The meaning "answer the 
charges against you" or "you are answerable for your own actions" are 
thus older.

Like many words, it then gained more use-cases, and has built up quite a 
collection.  But like all words, the important meanings are what people 
take the word to mean - not what dictionaries say it has meant in the 
past.  The purpose of words is communication, and the prime meaning, if 
there is no other guiding context, is the way the word is commonly 
understood by a wide proportion of proficient speakers of the language. 
Dictionaries are guides to help when the meaning of a word is not 
understood - they are not definitions or standards documents.


> Therefore, I reluctantly concede that you did answer the question. You
> did not, however, provide the requested information.

No, he did not answer the question.  Answering the question would 
involve, as everyone interprets the word, giving the requested information.

What he did instead was play linguistic silly buggers to try to make 
himself look educated and superior to other people, in an attempt to 
hide the fact that he was wrong (or at the very least, he does not know 
the answer), and was too cowardly to admit it.  It is not often that Tim 
is wrong about something C related, but when he is, he will move heaven 
and earth to try to hide it.

> 
> I find those definitions problematic. If a form says "Answer the
> following questions", is i really instructing you to do whatever you
> want to do? If so, what's the point of providing such an instruction?

No, it is instruction you to "answer the following questions" in the way 
any normal person proficient in the language would interpret the 
instruction.  It is clear from my phrasing that this is somewhat vague - 
it is good enough for most purposes but not, for example, for a legal 
document that needs to be more specific - or for a programming language 
that needs to have only one possible interpretation.  Since this is a 
discussion forum in English, not legalise or code, "answer" means 
exactly what we all assume it means.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379655

On 28/12/23 16:12, David Brown wrote:
> On 28/12/2023 02:14, James Kuyper wrote:

> that needs to have only one possible interpretation.  Since this is a
> discussion forum in English, not legalise or code, "answer" means
> exactly what we all assume it means.

"legalese".

Who let all the nerds into comp.lang.c anyway?

Oh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#380724

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

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You have not so far answered the question.  An answer would
>>> have included [...]
>>
>> I suggest you look up the word "answer" in an English
>> dictionary.  I did answer.
>
> I was somewhat disappointed when I did look it up.  A question is a
> request for information, and I had understood an answer to be a response
> to that question which provided the requested information.  The answer
> could be erroneous, or deliberately wrong or misleading, but it was not
> an answer unless it at least pretended to provide the requested
> information.  I was familiar with the common practice of saying that, for
> instance, "The guard asked 'Who goes there?', and the the commando
> answered with a knife to the guard's heart.", but I always considered
> that calling something like that an "answer" was a kind of joke.  I might
> have imagined that a dictionary would provide a more general definition
> of "answer" that included such things, but I expected that there would
> also be a more restricted definition that excluded any response that did
> not provide the requested information.
> However, that's not what I found.  For instance, Wiktionary defines an
> answer as "something said or done in reaction to a statement or
> question."  I saw similar definitions in several other online
> dictionaries.  Therefore, ANYTHING you do when reacting to a question
> qualifies as an answer, whether it be a lie, or a non-sequitur, or a
> blow to the head.
> Therefore, I reluctantly concede that you did answer the question.  You
> did not, however, provide the requested information.
>
> I find those definitions problematic.  If a form says "Answer the
> following questions", is i really instructing you to do whatever you
> want to do?  If so, what's the point of providing such an instruction?

Communicating in English (and probably any natural language, but I
am fluent only in English) is not an exact science.  An important
aspect of speaking or writing in English is making sure that the
meaning that got conveyed is the same as the meaning that was
intended.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379529

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
...
>>> On 11/18/23 08:44, Keith Thompson wrote:
...
>>>> What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?
>>
>> Yes, that is the question I was referring to. [...]
>
> I did answer.  If you don't like my answer that's your
> problem, not mine.

I saw a response, several of them in fact, but none of those responses
contained an answer. An answer would identify the relevant syntax rule
or constraint - none of your responses identified any syntax error or
constraint violation. All I saw was responses that gave bad excuses for
not bothering to answer the question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#379641

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

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> ...
>
>>>> On 11/18/23 08:44, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>>> What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?
>>>
>>> Yes, that is the question I was referring to.  [...]
>>
>> I did answer.  If you don't like my answer that's your
>> problem, not mine.
>
> I saw a response, several of them in fact, but none of those responses
> contained an answer.  An answer would identify the relevant syntax rule
> or constraint - none of your responses identified any syntax error or
> constraint violation.  All I saw was responses that gave bad excuses for
> not bothering to answer the question.

I suggest you look up the word "answer" in an English dictionary
rather than a James Kuyper dictionary.  I did answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web