Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Adjacent string literals Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:29:33 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 64 Message-ID: <86im125kaq.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86v95i88zw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87fswl7rvg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="de9677d480b140bf390ca5541b44761f"; logging-data="1162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Tdf9TWc+AfSe3wNjteftpHPbGBBLiIt4=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:b9LuqPcpDn9UIYtBoT3eG0VPQFc= sha1:PnheO/QclwpoTnBYHJMYTbL2OHY= Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6270 Keith Thompson writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> James Kuyper writes: > > [...] > >>> If the phrase "White-space characters separating tokens are no longer >>> significant." were moved from the beginning of the description of phase >>> 7 to the beginning of the description phase 6, it would make the >>> insignificance of white space separating string literals perfectly >>> clear, and as far as I can see, would have no other effect >> >> 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. > > That's not entirely clear. dictionary.com (not a definitive reference > but a convenient one) shows "adjoining" as one of the definitions of > "adjacent". That's consistent with what I said: "adjoining" being only one of the definitions is consistent with saying "adjacent" doesn't _always_ mean touching. Words in English can be ambiguous in their meanings. > If I understand you correctly, if rooms 110 and 112 share a common wall, > perhaps with a door going between them, they're both adjacent and > adjoining, In the case of hotels I think "adjoining" always means connected, either with or perhaps without a door, but yes. > but if instead they're on opposide sides of the elevator > they're adjacent but not adjoining. Is that what you meant? I'm not > sure I'd call them "adjacent" in that case. A better example is a small utility closet rather than an elevator. "Adjacent" usually implies "closeness" even if it doesn't always mean touching, and two rooms with a bank of four elevators between them would for most people not be considered adjacent, I think. In the case of hotel rooms at least it's a matter of degree. Another example is two rooms having the same latitude and longitude, but on different (consecutive) floors. I think most people wouldn't call those rooms "adjacent". However, if there is a connecting stairway between them, a hotel might very well offer them as "adjoining rooms". > A footnote on "Adjacent string literals are concatenated" saying that > two string literals are adjacent if they're adjoining or separated only > by white-space characters would clear this up. Moving "White-space > characters separating tokens are no longer significant." from the > beginning of phase 7 to the beginning of phase 6 would also be a good > solution. > > But given the clear examples, I wouldn't object to leaving it as it is. Given that the wording lasted more than 30 years without anyone even noticing a problem, I think the case for leaving it alone is decidedly stronger than the case for making a change.