Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Are there any conformant C compilers?
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:40:13 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <861qsfpcc2.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <te6n25$16ga$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87wnaoghlj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <tepoqu$24ah6$1@dont-email.me> <87sflahhkp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <tesbel$2fn49$1@dont-email.me> <tessl6$19la$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fb2376f7-b105-4146-8c93-dcca3a7ebabdn@googlegroups.com> <tet337$amb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87fsh9iz25.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tetcd0$o2q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <11d1020d-144d-4da0-88c1-3d56b4160c2an@googlegroups.com> <87pmgdh85z.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f78eb4b4-e249-4748-a5a3-72cfa93c84efn@googlegroups.com> <878rn1h5lk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9586550c-6a4b-4a75-a10a-25f26e109b85n@googlegroups.com> <87tu5pfm0t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <38331300-95c3-4499-aa89-062b82974309n@googlegroups.com> <tev2uo$2r5ie$1@dont-email.me> <87czccfyq0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <86mtb5p6gd.fsf@linuxsc.com> <874jxcyhyh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="92872b52a6f682cd3838888a35637fbb"; logging-data="2744000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ktr+Y1FM816dJOEYeJoBVaJwCY7wi/mo="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AySWlJdWg/Tf5VVTWH/vLVw32LI= sha1:GcovZ3z8ieN1qNb6kslDELo1XT4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:167672

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
> <cut>
>
>>> Thinking about it a bit more, the common factor with all literals is
>>> that they represent /anonymous/ values.  Without compound literals you
>>> could not write a value of any aggregate type, other than char[].
>>
>> The key difference is that "constants" are values, and "literals"
>> are objects.
>
> That's how C uses the term (for the time being) but it's hardly
> universal.

Certainly I didn't mean to imply that these usages are universal;
only that the ISO C standard observes them consistently, and that
in the context of the C standard the distinction is a useful one.