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: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:14:32 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <86bks5sopz.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <te6n25$16ga$1@gioia.aioe.org> <86v8qgs5ww.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87r114w98x.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86mtbrrrb4.fsf@linuxsc.com> <874jxyltz1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86fshis8ua.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87lerajn1f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7e358356b2d532e1bf5d8d8c23833be7"; logging-data="350489"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182B3bSIpNQIHKkyh3gmdoglp/A3USpPPg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LeTc4ZsmY4CS1bEfyIkCfyZrpDs= sha1:pyesPw6gha4IEZe4rui5seF12XU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:167244

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

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> [...]
>
>> My take on this is that you are interpreting passages in the C
>> standard based on your own preconceptions of what the word
>> "accept" means, rather than investigating the matter and
>> accepting the inherent ambiguity of usage in the English
>> language.
>
> Based on past experience, debating this further would be a waste
> of my time.

I don't know why you think of it as debate.  I am expressing my
opinions.  You are expressing your opinions.  As far as I know
there has been no disagreement over any statement of fact.  Do
you feel some sort of need to convince other people that your
opinions are "right"?