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

Groups > comp.std.c > #6419

Re: Adjacent string literals

Show all headers | View raw

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

> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 6:26:22 PM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> James Kuyper <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 11:49:09 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> The word "adjacent" doesn't alway mean touching.  There is
>>>> another word for that, the word "adjoining".  Booking a hotel
>>>> reservation for adjacent rooms is not the same as a reservation
>>>> for adjoining rooms.
>>>
>>> But, if it doesn't mean "touching", what does it mean?
>>
>> In hotels, normally it means on the same floor and with no
>> intervening rooms or other major building structures (but small
>> things like utility closets don't count).  In a country inn where
>> there are standalone cottages rather than rooms, two cottages
>> would normally be called adjacent if there were no other cottages
>> in between, and the cottages in question were not inordinately
>> far apart.
>>
>> In the C standard it means having no intervening tokens.
>>
>>> If a blank space
>>> doesn't prevent them from being adjacent, what does?
>>
>> Another token (not a string literal token, presumably, ...
>
> I think your wording got a little confused there.  In "A""B""C",
> the "B" string literal token definitely does prevent the "A" and
> "C" string literal tokens from being considered adjacent.  An
> implementation would certainly be non-conforming if it
> concatenated "A" directly to "C" without first concatenating one
> or the other with "B".  The following wording may be intended to
> address that issue:
>
>> ... but only
>> because we might consider a sequence of string literal tokens
>> to be "adjacent tokens").
>
> but it's not very clear that it does.  The simpler approach is to
> say that the one thing that unambiguously DOES prevent two string
> literal tokens from being considered adjacent is another string
> literal token.  The only real question is whether there's anything
> else that does so.
>
> [...]

Apparently you have missed the point of what I was saying.  That
surprises me, because I didn't think it was difficult to
understand.


>>> I contend that it doesn't clearly make that distinction anywhere,
>>
>> If I may make a suggestion, how you read the C standard doesn't
>> match the reading mode expected by its authors. ...
>
> Your reading mode puts too much emphasis on guessing the intent of
> the authors,

It's not surprising that you think so, because that view doesn't
fit with your agenda.  However, judging what meaning is intended
isn't what I'm talking about when I say "reading mode".

> and not enough on trying to write the text clearly
> enough to avoid the need for such guesswork.

That's a non-sequitur.  The two views are not in opposition;
they are about different kinds of discussion regarding the C
standard.  They are not mutually exclusive.

> You might be right that it is the intended reading mode, but if
> so, I consider it a seriously flawed one.

If "it" refers to "judging what meaning is intended", then "it"
is independent of "reading mode" as I am using the term.  (Note
also that the word I used is "expected", and not "intended", but
that distinction is not the primary point of focus.)

Let me give an example.  The C standard is not a math textbook.
Most people don't read the C standard as though it were a math
textbook.  Trying to read the C standard in much the same way as
one reads a math text would be a different "reading mode" than
how most people read it.  Does this example help explain what I
mean by "reading mode"?


>> ... If no one else has noticed it in
>> more than 30 years, what does that say about how clear or unclear
>> the distinction is?
>
> You can't be sure that no one else has noticed it, [...]

I never said I was.  The question is not what I know but what you
know.  If, as far as /you/ know, no one else has noticed the
point you brought up, then it would appear that no one else is
bothered by it.  Do you know of any previous instance of someone
else bringing up this question?  Or is it, to the best of your
knowledge, the case that your posting here is the first such
occurrence?

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-25 10:15 -0500
  Re: Adjacent string literals Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-26 12:22 +0000
    Re: Adjacent string literals Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2021-01-26 13:48 +0100
      Re: Adjacent string literals Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-01-26 13:05 -0800
      Re: Adjacent string literals Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-26 21:40 +0000
        Re: Adjacent string literals Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2021-01-28 09:53 +0100
          Re: Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-28 05:45 -0500
    Re: Adjacent string literals Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-01-26 07:52 -0500
    Re: Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-26 09:29 -0500
      Re: Adjacent string literals Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-26 21:46 +0000
        Re: Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-26 18:28 -0500
          Re: Adjacent string literals Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-27 01:16 +0000
            Re: Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-26 22:48 -0500
              Re: Adjacent string literals Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-27 15:46 +0000
                Re: Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-27 11:20 -0500
                Re: Adjacent string literals Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-01-28 03:05 +0000
  Re: Adjacent string literals Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-10 08:49 -0700
    Re: Adjacent string literals Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 14:58 -0700
      Re: Adjacent string literals Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-22 10:29 -0700
    Re: Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-07-11 11:41 -0700
      Re: Adjacent string literals Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-22 15:26 -0700
        Re: Adjacent string literals James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-07-22 17:29 -0700
          Re: Adjacent string literals Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-17 05:29 -0800

csiph-web