Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 05:35:26 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 44 Message-ID: <868rvetrhd.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20210930012112$48d9@zira.vinc17.org> <87pmsqizrh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20210930105413$d6e8@zira.vinc17.org> <86wnmoov7c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211009201151$a68b@zira.vinc17.org> <861r3pbbwh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211110124948$eea4@zira.vinc17.org> <86wnlg9ey7.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211112231854$195e@zira.vinc17.org> <86v90t8l6j.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211115233426$5e8a@zira.vinc17.org> <20211116011941$1337@zira.vinc17.org> <87pmqzv64t.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86fsq4y1vw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <6d480235-16d5-4de4-8a15-4c55df49250dn@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="15598caebf32ebbe97649a2f881af1fe"; logging-data="7626"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7TP4/cUUM6vCdS7sSRG2Q9hnZst1jpJY=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:hYLSM3MOm8SMsyv5yzX7aollKXg= sha1:Cr1Ykf3btoOQrG9MUYZszkB8olc= Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6420 James Kuyper writes: > On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Keith Thompson writes: >> >>> James Kuyper writes: > > ... > >>>> The standard says nothing to that effect. The only meaningful >>>> thing it says is that a diagnostic is required (5.1.1.3p1). I do >>>> not consider the standard's definition of "constraint" to be >>>> meaningful: "restriction, either syntactic or semantic, by which >>>> the exposition of language elements is to be interpreted" (3.8). > > ... > >>> The standard's definition of "constraint" is uncomfortably vague >>> -- but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable ignoring it. >>> >>> Given the definition of a "constraint" as a "restriction, either >>> syntactic or semantic, by which the exposition of language >>> elements is to be interpreted", it seems to me to be at least >>> plausible that when a constraint is violated, the "exposition of >>> language elements" cannot be interpreted. > > ... > >>> I'm not saying that this is the only way to interpret that wording. >>> It's vague enough to permit a number of reasonable readings. [...] >> >> So you're saying that the meaning of the definition of constraint >> is to some extent subjective, ie, reader dependent? > > As I said above, it seems to me to be so poorly worded that it's not > clear to me that it has any meaning, much less one that is subjective. > Since other people disagree with me on that point, there would > appear to be some subjectivity at play in that judgment, but after > reading their arguments, I remain at a loss as to how they can > interpret that phrase as being meaningful. So is what you're saying that whether the meaning is subjective is itself a subjective question?