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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#379514 — Re: bart again (UCX64)

On 2023-11-18 at 00:17 EST, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> I don't remember any outstanding question from the discussion of
> falling off the end of a non-void function. Looking back over
> postings from you responding to a posting of mine I don't see
> any either. I guess it's possible there was a question but I
> didn't see it. In any case I have no idea what question in that
> thread you want answered, so if you still want an answer please
> ask the question again. 

The question he was referring to was the very last sentence of the
following text, which comes from a message posted on the thread titled
"bart again (UCX64)". You never answered it. Keith posted three more
messages on that subthread repeating the question and asking why you had
not bothered answering it. You answered with the same useless comments
about needing a "shared understanding of what the statement means" that
you're using in this thread. What makes those comments useless is not
that they are wrong, but that you failed to explain what understanding
you think is not shared between you and Keith. Because you failed to
explain that, I have no idea why you think it's needed to answer a
simple straightforward question like the following:

On 9/4/23 21:57, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>> On 04/09/2023 12:06, Bart wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>   char* fred(void) {
>>>>>   (long long int)rand()*3.14159;
>>>>>   }
>>>>>   int main(void) {
>>>>>   printf("%s\n", fred());
>>>>>   }
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> As you know, it is not valid C code.  As you know, proper C compilers
>>>> will - at least - warn you about it when asked to treat the input
>>>> according to the C standards.  As you know, there isn't a compiler in
>>>> the world for any language which will stop programmers from writing
>>>> incorrect code.
>>>
>>> Given the context of the discussion, pedantry seems appropriate.
>>>
>>> It's invalid C code because it doesn't declare rand() and printf(),
>>> correctable by adding `#include <stdlib.h>` and `#include <stdio.h>`.
>>> (It also contains NO-BREAK SPACE characters, but that's that's just a
>>> Usenet formatting issue.)
>>>
>>> Other than that, a conforming C compiler is not required to diagnose
>>> the above code.  It does have undefined behavior, and a C compiler is
>>> likely to warn about it with appropriate warnings, but it does not
>>> violate any syntax rule or constraint.
>>
>> I say it does.

That would have been the correct place to identify the syntax rule or
constraint you think it violates, and I have no idea why you failed to
do so.

> If you're right, then gcc 13.2.0 and clang 16.0.0 have a bug.  Both
> compile the above code (once the required #include directives are added)
> without error, though clang prints a couple of optional warnings.  I used
> "-std=c17 -pedantic-errors" with both compilers.  (With "-Wall", gcc
> prints warnings similar to the ones clang prints without it.)
> 
> What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#379515

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 2023-11-18 at 00:17 EST, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> I don't remember any outstanding question from the discussion of
>> falling off the end of a non-void function. Looking back over
>> postings from you responding to a posting of mine I don't see
>> any either. I guess it's possible there was a question but I
>> didn't see it. In any case I have no idea what question in that
>> thread you want answered, so if you still want an answer please
>> ask the question again. 
>
> The question he was referring to was the very last sentence of the
> following text, which comes from a message posted on the thread titled
> "bart again (UCX64)". You never answered it. Keith posted three more
> messages on that subthread repeating the question and asking why you had
> not bothered answering it. You answered with the same useless comments
> about needing a "shared understanding of what the statement means" that
> you're using in this thread. What makes those comments useless is not
> that they are wrong, but that you failed to explain what understanding
> you think is not shared between you and Keith. Because you failed to
> explain that, I have no idea why you think it's needed to answer a
> simple straightforward question like the following:
>
> On 9/4/23 21:57, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>> On 04/09/2023 12:06, Bart wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>   char* fred(void) {
>>>>>>   (long long int)rand()*3.14159;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>   int main(void) {
>>>>>>   printf("%s\n", fred());
>>>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> As you know, it is not valid C code.  As you know, proper C compilers
>>>>> will - at least - warn you about it when asked to treat the input
>>>>> according to the C standards.  As you know, there isn't a compiler in
>>>>> the world for any language which will stop programmers from writing
>>>>> incorrect code.
>>>>
>>>> Given the context of the discussion, pedantry seems appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> It's invalid C code because it doesn't declare rand() and printf(),
>>>> correctable by adding `#include <stdlib.h>` and `#include <stdio.h>`.
>>>> (It also contains NO-BREAK SPACE characters, but that's that's just a
>>>> Usenet formatting issue.)
>>>>
>>>> Other than that, a conforming C compiler is not required to diagnose
>>>> the above code.  It does have undefined behavior, and a C compiler is
>>>> likely to warn about it with appropriate warnings, but it does not
>>>> violate any syntax rule or constraint.
>>>
>>> I say it does.
>
> That would have been the correct place to identify the syntax rule or
> constraint you think it violates, and I have no idea why you failed to
> do so.
>
>> If you're right, then gcc 13.2.0 and clang 16.0.0 have a bug.  Both
>> compile the above code (once the required #include directives are added)
>> without error, though clang prints a couple of optional warnings.  I used
>> "-std=c17 -pedantic-errors" with both compilers.  (With "-Wall", gcc
>> prints warnings similar to the ones clang prints without it.)
>> 
>> What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?

Yes, that is the question I was referring to.  To repeat, given this
code:

  char* fred(void) {
      (long long int)rand()*3.14159;
  }

  int main(void) {
      printf("%s\n", fred());
  }

I asserted that it does not violate any syntax rule or constraint.
You asserted, with no explanation, that it does.

What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?

(Optional followup question: Why didn't you answer that when I first
asked it two and a half months ago?)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#379518

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>
>> On 2023-11-18 at 00:17 EST, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> I don't remember any outstanding question from the discussion of
>>> falling off the end of a non-void function.  Looking back over
>>> postings from you responding to a posting of mine I don't see
>>> any either.  I guess it's possible there was a question but I
>>> didn't see it.  In any case I have no idea what question in that
>>> thread you want answered, so if you still want an answer please
>>> ask the question again.
>>
>> The question he was referring to was the very last sentence of the
>> following text, which comes from a message posted on the thread titled
>> "bart again (UCX64)".  You never answered it.  Keith posted three more
>> messages on that subthread repeating the question and asking why you had
>> not bothered answering it.  You answered with the same useless comments
>> about needing a "shared understanding of what the statement means" that
>> you're using in this thread.  What makes those comments useless is not
>> that they are wrong, but that you failed to explain what understanding
>> you think is not shared between you and Keith.  Because you failed to
>> explain that, I have no idea why you think it's needed to answer a
>> simple straightforward question like the following:
>>
>> On 9/4/23 21:57, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/09/2023 12:06, Bart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>   char* fred(void) {
>>>>>>>   (long long int)rand()*3.14159;
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>   int main(void) {
>>>>>>>   printf("%s\n", fred());
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> As you know, it is not valid C code.  As you know, proper C compilers
>>>>>> will - at least - warn you about it when asked to treat the input
>>>>>> according to the C standards.  As you know, there isn't a compiler in
>>>>>> the world for any language which will stop programmers from writing
>>>>>> incorrect code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the context of the discussion, pedantry seems appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's invalid C code because it doesn't declare rand() and printf(),
>>>>> correctable by adding `#include <stdlib.h>` and `#include <stdio.h>`.
>>>>> (It also contains NO-BREAK SPACE characters, but that's that's just a
>>>>> Usenet formatting issue.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, a conforming C compiler is not required to diagnose
>>>>> the above code.  It does have undefined behavior, and a C compiler is
>>>>> likely to warn about it with appropriate warnings, but it does not
>>>>> violate any syntax rule or constraint.
>>>>
>>>> I say it does.
>>
>> That would have been the correct place to identify the syntax rule or
>> constraint you think it violates, and I have no idea why you failed to
>> do so.
>>
>>> If you're right, then gcc 13.2.0 and clang 16.0.0 have a bug.  Both
>>> compile the above code (once the required #include directives are added)
>>> without error, though clang prints a couple of optional warnings.  I used
>>> "-std=c17 -pedantic-errors" with both compilers.  (With "-Wall", gcc
>>> prints warnings similar to the ones clang prints without it.)
>>>
>>> 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.

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

#379524

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 2023-11-18 at 00:17 EST, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> I don't remember any outstanding question from the discussion of
>>>> falling off the end of a non-void function.  Looking back over
>>>> postings from you responding to a posting of mine I don't see
>>>> any either.  I guess it's possible there was a question but I
>>>> didn't see it.  In any case I have no idea what question in that
>>>> thread you want answered, so if you still want an answer please
>>>> ask the question again.
>>>
>>> The question he was referring to was the very last sentence of the
>>> following text, which comes from a message posted on the thread titled
>>> "bart again (UCX64)".  You never answered it.  Keith posted three more
>>> messages on that subthread repeating the question and asking why you had
>>> not bothered answering it.  You answered with the same useless comments
>>> about needing a "shared understanding of what the statement means" that
>>> you're using in this thread.  What makes those comments useless is not
>>> that they are wrong, but that you failed to explain what understanding
>>> you think is not shared between you and Keith.  Because you failed to
>>> explain that, I have no idea why you think it's needed to answer a
>>> simple straightforward question like the following:
>>>
>>> On 9/4/23 21:57, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/09/2023 12:06, Bart wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   char* fred(void) {
>>>>>>>>   (long long int)rand()*3.14159;
>>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>>   int main(void) {
>>>>>>>>   printf("%s\n", fred());
>>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you know, it is not valid C code.  As you know, proper C compilers
>>>>>>> will - at least - warn you about it when asked to treat the input
>>>>>>> according to the C standards.  As you know, there isn't a compiler in
>>>>>>> the world for any language which will stop programmers from writing
>>>>>>> incorrect code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the context of the discussion, pedantry seems appropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's invalid C code because it doesn't declare rand() and printf(),
>>>>>> correctable by adding `#include <stdlib.h>` and `#include <stdio.h>`.
>>>>>> (It also contains NO-BREAK SPACE characters, but that's that's just a
>>>>>> Usenet formatting issue.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other than that, a conforming C compiler is not required to diagnose
>>>>>> the above code.  It does have undefined behavior, and a C compiler is
>>>>>> likely to warn about it with appropriate warnings, but it does not
>>>>>> violate any syntax rule or constraint.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say it does.
>>>
>>> That would have been the correct place to identify the syntax rule or
>>> constraint you think it violates, and I have no idea why you failed to
>>> do so.
>>>
>>>> If you're right, then gcc 13.2.0 and clang 16.0.0 have a bug.  Both
>>>> compile the above code (once the required #include directives are added)
>>>> without error, though clang prints a couple of optional warnings.  I used
>>>> "-std=c17 -pedantic-errors" with both compilers.  (With "-Wall", gcc
>>>> prints warnings similar to the ones clang prints without it.)
>>>>
>>>> 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.

In this thread, in the first quoted paragraph in this post, you
asked me to repeat a question that I had asked before.  I did so.
It was a simple question, not a matter of opinion, not an invitation
to an argument.

I am now asking you to repeat your answer to that question (or
rather to answer it in the first place).

You have not so far answered the question.  An answer would
have included a citation of a specific syntax rule or constraint
(including the section, subsection, and paragraph number in some
edition or draft of the ISO C standard) that is violated by the
program quoted above.

It's possible that I'm mistaken, and that you have actually
answered the question.  If you demonstrate that, I will acknowledge
my mistake.

I will not ask again.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#379640

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.

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

#379642

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.

You actually seem to believe that.  I no longer care.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#379650

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?

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

#379651

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

[...]

> I was somewhat disappointed when I did look it up. [...] 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." [...]
> 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.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition,
seems to provide the definition you want, but as a second and third
option.  It's unclear what they mean with the order.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
A spoken or written reply, as to a question.
A correct reply.
A solution, as to a problem.

Source:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

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

#379653

On 28.12.2023 03:22, Julieta Shem wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I was somewhat disappointed when I did look it up. [...] 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." [...]
>> 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.
> 
> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition,
> seems to provide the definition you want, but as a second and third
> option. 

I think dictionary entries do not address what's going on here and
what's necessary in a concrete communication.

> It's unclear what they mean with the order.

Grades of abstraction and specialization [in a try to explain a term].
(Explanations are by far not normative.)

> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> A spoken or written reply, as to a question.

That's a pure "technical" characterization.

> A correct reply.

This one carries specific semantics; not only requiring validity, but
assuming that there's a clear and unopposed truth/correctness.

> A solution, as to a problem.

And this one still ignores how communication and information exchange
actually works. Whether the problem is clearly described. Whether the
solution is fitting (respecting known or unknown conditions).

Neither of these three explanations of the term "answer" is useful for
the [abstract and concrete] communication phenomenon we generally have
(and also in Usenet).

And that all ignores the fact that the call to look up the dictionary
was obviously intended to work on a completely different communication
level than an actual (and desired) topical information exchange.

> 
> Source:
> The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 

Janis

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

#379652

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.
> 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?

This is a nice contribution to a somewhat heated conversation. Yes, an
answer without information is of little use (on the information level).

Technically it has been answered, but arbitrary answers alone do not
help. The [last] answer had actually been on a meta level; it seems to
say that the poster missed the informational content of the replies.
That may be true or not. If it is true the requester may re-read the
posts. Or maybe the responder has missed that the answer is either not
sufficient or missed the point (or something else). And here Shannon
pops in; every single information transfer (requests and responses) is
affected by Equivocation H(X|Y) and Irrelevance H(Y|X). But even if the
Mutual Information I(X;Y) is maximized it may still not be sufficient
to help for the posters request.

Neither dictionaries nor information theory helps to answer the posted
questions, but understanding Shannon's theories - which nicely maps to
social communication! - might prevent widely meaningless and redundant
transfers like "You have not answered" and "I did answer". :-)

Janis

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

#380723

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

> 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.
>> 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?
>
> This is a nice contribution to a somewhat heated conversation.  Yes, an
> answer without information is of little use (on the information level).
>
> Technically it has been answered, but arbitrary answers alone do not
> help.  [...]

I think it's worth reviewing what happened.  I should say that my
review here is being done from memory so some of the details may
be a little off, but the principal points should be reasonably
accurate.

Keith Thompson posted a message in the newsgroup here in a thread
I was not involved in.  In response to his posting I posted a
very short reply.  Keith responded to that posting asking for
a fuller explanation of my comment.  (Let me add parenthetically
that his action in doing that is perfectly reasonable.)

When I saw his response, I realized that my statement had been
misunderstood.  I explained that, and said something to the
effect of not wanting to try to unravel the confusion because it
wasn't worth the trouble.  Keith responded to that posting,
asking again for an explanation of the statement that he thought
I made but was not what I had meant to say.

I responded again trying to explain that there had been a
miscommunication, and (as I recall) saying again that trying to
unravel that misunderstanding was too much trouble.  I took
responsibility for the confusion of my original statement, and
said "I withdraw my previous statement.  Okay?".  Keith responded
to that posting, probably asking his same question again, however
I don't remember any specific details.

I don't remember anything else until at some later point Keith
accused me of not having answered his question.  To be clear,
what he was asking me was to give an explanation of a statement
that I never made, and I had tried to explain that I never made
it, and in any case had no interest in discussing, even assuming
that I know what it is he meant with his question.  My impression
is that Keith never understood that what I originally said was
not the same as what he was asking about.

Since I tried not once but twice (or maybe a third time, I'm not
sure) to explain that he was asking for an explanation of
something I never said, and said in effect that the confusion was
my fault, and explicitly withdrew my original statement, I feel
justified in thinking that I gave a fair response to his
inquiries.  If he's not satisfied with what I said, well, he is
entitled to his own views.  But rather than saying something
about himself not being satisfied, he made an accusation against
me.  IMO the accusation made is off the mark, in both the letter
and the spirit of the English language.  Feeling that I had been
unfairly accused, I felt obliged to respond in an effort to
convey that.

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

#380734

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>> 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.
>>> 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?
>>
>> This is a nice contribution to a somewhat heated conversation.  Yes, an
>> answer without information is of little use (on the information level).
>>
>> Technically it has been answered, but arbitrary answers alone do not
>> help.  [...]
>
> I think it's worth reviewing what happened.  I should say that my
> review here is being done from memory so some of the details may
> be a little off, but the principal points should be reasonably
> accurate.
>
> Keith Thompson posted a message in the newsgroup here in a thread
> I was not involved in.  In response to his posting I posted a
> very short reply.  Keith responded to that posting asking for
> a fuller explanation of my comment.  (Let me add parenthetically
> that his action in doing that is perfectly reasonable.)

Yes.

> When I saw his response, I realized that my statement had been
> misunderstood.  I explained that, and said something to the
> effect of not wanting to try to unravel the confusion because it
> wasn't worth the trouble.  Keith responded to that posting,
> asking again for an explanation of the statement that he thought
> I made but was not what I had meant to say.

I stated that a certain program, involving a non-void function 
with no return statement and a caller attempting to use the result of a
call to that function, has undefined behavior but does not violate any
syntax rule or constraint.

Your response was "I say it does.".

> I responded again trying to explain that there had been a
> miscommunication, and (as I recall) saying again that trying to
> unravel that misunderstanding was too much trouble.  I took
> responsibility for the confusion of my original statement, and
> said "I withdraw my previous statement.  Okay?".  Keith responded
> to that posting, probably asking his same question again, however
> I don't remember any specific details.

I believed, and still do believe, that my original statement was
factually correct: the code does not violate any syntax rule or
constraint.  Your response clearly stated, incorrectly I believe, that
it does violate some syntax rule or constraint.

You're now saying that you withdrew your statement.  I absolutely did
not see anything from you indicating such a withdrawal until now.  It's
certainly possible that I missed something, but unlikely that nobody
else saw your withdrawal.  Based on what I've seen here, the only
information I had was that (a) you asserted that the code violated some
syntax rule or constraint, (b) you did not say which syntax rule or
contraint was violated, in spite of my repeated requests that you do so,
and (c) you later claimed to have answered my question.  I had no idea
why you would refuse to provide a clarification.

If you're now withdrawing your original claim, I'll accept that.  Next
time, I urge you to consider not wasting everyone's time in this manner.

> I don't remember anything else until at some later point Keith
> accused me of not having answered his question.  To be clear,
> what he was asking me was to give an explanation of a statement
> that I never made, and I had tried to explain that I never made
> it, and in any case had no interest in discussing, even assuming
> that I know what it is he meant with his question.  My impression
> is that Keith never understood that what I originally said was
> not the same as what he was asking about.

No, I was asking you to give an explanation of a statement that you very
clearly did make.  I see no reasonable interpretion other than that you
were saying that some language rule was violated.  Of course we all make
mistakes, but I was not under the impression that you had acknowledged
a mistake (and I'm not entirely sure you're doing so now).

Perhaps you meant something else by "I say it does.", but the meaning
seemed crystal clear in context, and I never saw an attempt from you to
clarify it.

> Since I tried not once but twice (or maybe a third time, I'm not
> sure) to explain that he was asking for an explanation of
> something I never said, and said in effect that the confusion was
> my fault, and explicitly withdrew my original statement, I feel
> justified in thinking that I gave a fair response to his
> inquiries.  If he's not satisfied with what I said, well, he is
> entitled to his own views.  But rather than saying something
> about himself not being satisfied, he made an accusation against
> me.  IMO the accusation made is off the mark, in both the letter
> and the spirit of the English language.  Feeling that I had been
> unfairly accused, I felt obliged to respond in an effort to
> convey that.

If I had seen your withdrawal of your original statement, this dicussion
would have been over long ago.

To be clear, do you now say that you agree that the code in question
does not violate any syntax rule or constraint?  And can you cite an
article (which I must have missed) in which you withdrew your original
"I say it does." statement?

If you can access the message with message-id <86jzt5pgho.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
posted Sep 4 2023, it contains your original statement.  See also
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/O-V_X7Cfc6I/m/gQdUwhKBAwAJ>
(scroll down, the message content should be expanded).

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#380779

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".

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

#380809

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.

However, on 2023-11-19 03:25:56, Tim falsely claimed:
> I did answer.

Apparently, for reasons best know to Tim (since, as usual, he refuses to
explain them), he considered one of the messages in which he failed to
identify a syntax rule or a constraint violated by that code, to be,
despite that failure, an answer to Keith's question.

That message effectively cancelled his withdrawal of that comment.

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

#380819

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> 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.
>
> However, on 2023-11-19 03:25:56, Tim falsely claimed:
>> I did answer.
>
> Apparently, for reasons best know to Tim (since, as usual, he refuses to
> explain them), he considered one of the messages in which he failed to
> identify a syntax rule or a constraint violated by that code, to be,
> despite that failure, an answer to Keith's question.
>
> That message effectively cancelled his withdrawal of that comment.

Tim, I acknowledge that at one point you did withdraw your "I say it
does" remark.  At least I'm assuming that when you wrote "I withdraw my
earlier statement", the statement you were referring to was your earlier
"I say it does".  Feel free to clarify that.

Looking back at the article in which you wrote "I withdraw my earlier
statement", I see that I actually replied to it.  It was a long article
in which you mused at length about shared understanding and unconscious
assumptions.  I must have read it at the time.  It's likely that I
accidentally missed your "I withdraw my earlier statement".  I accept
responsibility for that.

I agree with James that your later posts effectively cancelled your
withdrawal.  They also seriously muddied the waters.

I am still bewildered by your later claims that you had already answered
my question (and by your condescending suggestion to James to look up
the word "answer" in a dictionary).  Those claims were part of what led
me to think that you still stood by your original "I say it does"
statement -- a statement which I found to be completely unambiguous in
context.

In all this, after your original statement you have never chosen to
comment on the original technical issue, instead choosing to write
multiple vague paragraphs about the importance of clear communication.
On at least one occasion, likely more, you have talked about having or
not have a "shared understanding" of some statement while saying nothing
about *your* understanding of it.

I still don't know whether your "I say it does" was simply an error on
your part (i.e., that you wrongly thought that some syntax rule or
constraint was violated), or whether you intended it to mean something
other than the obvious interpretation.

Please consider the possibility that if multiple people don't seem to
understand what you're trying to say, it might not be everyone else's
fault.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#382503

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> [...]

I have now read through your comments several times, first somewhat
quickly and then more slowly and carefully.  (To be specific, the
comments referred to are those in the posting being replied to, and
also those three articles up from the immediately previous one, in
the same thread.)  Here is a short synopsis of my perceptions from
the prior discussions.

I posted a followup containing only a short one-sentence comment,
which precipitated a long series of postings and comments going
back and forth.

After realizing that my original one-sentence statement had been
misunderstood, I withdrew the earlier statement, meaning the
original one-sentence comment that precipitated it all.  I was
hoping to wrap up the discussion.  Following my statement of
withdrawal I have nothing more to say about that.

Early on a question was asked about my initial statement but I
realized the subject of the question was not the same as what I
was talking about.  Because the subject was different I didn't
have anything to say about it, and that is still the case now.

At some point it seemed like the discussion was finished, but
after a time a posting was made containing what I consider to be
an unfounded accusation.  I responded to try to set the record
straight.

At some later point I submitted a followup to a posting from
someone who had not participated in the discussions up to that
point.  I did this because I thought some misrepresentations
had been made, and so I made an effort to give a fair and
faithful presentation of what had happened.  That posting of
mine provoked another series of comments and reactions, which
appear to be similar to comments and reactions given earlier.

Based on recent comments it appears there was some confusion about
whether, or maybe when, I made the statement about withdrawing my
original comment.  I appreciate that the confusion was recognized
and a statement was made to that effect (note that "confusion" is
my word choice, not necessarily anyone else's).

(end of synopsis.)

I make no claim that any of the synopsis statements are offered
as statements of fact.

Let me say again that I have read through your comments and
expect to consider further what you have said.  As of now I have
nothing more to say about them.

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

#382509

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
> I have now read through your comments several times, first somewhat
> quickly and then more slowly and carefully.  (To be specific, the
> comments referred to are those in the posting being replied to, and
> also those three articles up from the immediately previous one, in
> the same thread.)  Here is a short synopsis of my perceptions from
> the prior discussions.
>
> I posted a followup containing only a short one-sentence comment,
> which precipitated a long series of postings and comments going
> back and forth.
>
> After realizing that my original one-sentence statement had been
> misunderstood, I withdrew the earlier statement, meaning the
> original one-sentence comment that precipitated it all.  I was
> hoping to wrap up the discussion.  Following my statement of
> withdrawal I have nothing more to say about that.

At the time, you had a great deal to say following your statement of
withdrawal.

I'm frankly tired of this whole thing.  Please do not feel obligated to
tell us yet again that you have nothing more to say, or to keep up
updated on how many times you've read my through comments.

If you have something relevant to say, especially something relevant to
C, by all means say it.  If you don't, I won't ask you not to post, but
I would prefer it.

You've expressed a desire to wrap this up.  You can do so now.  (I'll
also suggest that others not continue this discussion unless you have
something new and relevant to add.)

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#382793

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> I have now read through your comments several times, first somewhat
>> quickly and then more slowly and carefully.  (To be specific, the
>> comments referred to are those in the posting being replied to, and
>> also those three articles up from the immediately previous one, in
>> the same thread.)  Here is a short synopsis of my perceptions from
>> the prior discussions.
>>
>> I posted a followup containing only a short one-sentence comment,
>> which precipitated a long series of postings and comments going
>> back and forth.
>>
>> After realizing that my original one-sentence statement had been
>> misunderstood, I withdrew the earlier statement, meaning the
>> original one-sentence comment that precipitated it all.  I was
>> hoping to wrap up the discussion.  Following my statement of
>> withdrawal I have nothing more to say about that.
>
> At the time, you had a great deal to say following your statement of
> withdrawal.
>
> I'm frankly tired of this whole thing.  Please do not feel obligated to
> tell us yet again that you have nothing more to say, or to keep up
> updated on how many times you've read my through comments.
>
> If you have something relevant to say, especially something relevant to
> C, by all means say it.  If you don't, I won't ask you not to post, but
> I would prefer it.
>
> You've expressed a desire to wrap this up.  You can do so now.  (I'll
> also suggest that others not continue this discussion unless you have
> something new and relevant to add.)
>
> [...]

Okay.

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

#380890

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?  I am 
curious if there was any reason given (I doubt it).  When I realise I've 
written something incorrect about C, I prefer to say a bit more - such 
as "sorry for the confusion", or "thanks for correcting me here", or "my 
gut feeling is this, but I can't find any references in the standard to 
justify it".  Perhaps I will try to explain my reasoning for reaching 
the wrong conclusion, because that can be helpful in avoiding repeating 
the mistake.  (To be fair, I have much more practice than Tim at saying 
incorrect things about C!)

But just writing "I withdraw that comment" can mean everything from "I 
was wrong but don't want to admit it directly" to "I know I am right, 
but it is beneath my dignity to explain it to you ignorant savages and 
I'm fed up listening to your complaints".

I'd like to know more.  I'd like to know what Tim thought were the 
constraint or syntax rule violations - even if he now thinks they don't 
apply.  I'd like to know his reasoning both ways, because that's 
something we can learn from.  Maybe the wording in the standard is poor 
or that this is something that could be sent back to the C standards 
committee as a DR.  And if it was just a gut feeling without 
justification, or a simple mistake, it would be nice to clear that up too.



> However, on 2023-11-19 03:25:56, Tim falsely claimed:
>> I did answer.
> 
> Apparently, for reasons best know to Tim (since, as usual, he refuses to
> explain them), he considered one of the messages in which he failed to
> identify a syntax rule or a constraint violated by that code, to be,
> despite that failure, an answer to Keith's question.
> 
> That message effectively cancelled his withdrawal of that comment.
> 

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

#380913

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>
[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web