Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:40:40 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 79 Message-ID: <86d0nfcdk7.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> References: <30065f8f-0b5b-4d17-846f-4fa63051cd0e@googlegroups.com> <9d6896dc-a369-4eb0-a93c-c0317a19908e@googlegroups.com> <7615cc12-0e98-4917-a0d0-682c7aeabeb5@googlegroups.com> <8736oze00i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3f4afc9e-c532-4ee1-93f6-d6872c55928c@googlegroups.com> <87h8debdlm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6cc27732-6b74-4503-88e6-e0b991615a2a@googlegroups.com> <875ztub1vq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2184de8c-519a-4048-b0a9-d52ee34c49b4@googlegroups.com> <86y363cvaf.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> <1bh8crz8n1.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="279bc562aa03f845168df75782392ca0"; logging-data="9592"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XfVl3j0jQWANXMMy3AxNrFbTdfW+SlOw=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5D2O2dFUAevdvJHbiS/aK7bqnGY= sha1:ZdEHpa0qCh6vJ6LFZCZhD09IZfo= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:141387 Joe Pfeiffer writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> Richard Damon writes: >> >>> On 2/10/19 4:14 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>>> On Sunday, 10 February 2019 20:43:41 UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Malcolm McLean writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> A compiler turns some strings into executables and rejects others. So >>>>>> it has grammar rules, in the first sense. What's confusing you is that >>>>>> in basic computer science class rules for composing strings like "aab >>>>>> aaaabaabaaaaab" are described as "grammars". The strings have a form, >>>>>> but don't mean anything. So the so-called "grammar" actually lacks an >>>>>> essential attribute of grammar. Then it's not sufficient, it needs >>>>>> extra higher level rules if it is to specify a real programming language. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> No, what's confusing *you* is that, in the context of programming >>>>> languages, the word "grammar" is used to refer to *syntax*, in the >>>>> sense defined, for example, in Annex A of the C standard. >>>>> >>>>> A.1 is titled "Lexical grammar". A.2 is titled "Phase structure >>>>> grammar". >>>>> >>>>> Rules defining constraints and semantics are not referred to as >>>>> "grammar" rules. I understand that the word "grammar" might be >>>>> appropriate by analogy with the way we talk about, for example, >>>>> English grammar, but that's not the way the word is typically used >>>>> for programming languages. >>>>> >>>>> You insist on using the word "grammar" in a much wider sense, >>>>> and you refuse to acknowledge that any other use of the word could >>>>> be correct. >>>>> >>>>> I don't expect you to acknowledge the possibility that you might >>>>> be wrong. >>>> >>>> You insisted on rejecting the use of the word "grammatical" in a >>>> slightly wider sense. >>> >>> When discussing things in a community, especially a technical one, it is >>> normal to use the definitions, when they exist, of specialized terms >>> that the particular community uses. To insist on using some other >>> definition (without qualifying it when used to make it clear that you >>> are using something out of community) is at best rude, or possibly a >>> sign that the person is intentionally trying to cause problems or being >>> deceitful. >>> >>> This is a technical C user community, terms used in the Standards that >>> define the language, should generally be used in the way the Standards >>> use them. >> >> Malcolm would have us believe that if a sentence is grammatical >> it is necessarily sensical. That isn't right. It isn't right >> in Computer Science, and it isn't right in Linguistics either. >> The Chomsky sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" >> provides the famous counter-example: grammatical, but not >> sensical. > > If I understand him correctly (a big if) he's working the other way > around: if a sentence is not sensible, then he regards it as not > grammatical (regardless of whether it can be generated by applying > productions in the grammar). Yes, I got that. The Chomsky example sentence is squarely on point because Chomsky identified it as grammatically correct even though semantically nonsensical. Given Chomsky's stature in the field of Linguistics, I think I'm on pretty solid ground citing his example and also the man himself as an authority. For those who are interested here is a Wikipedia reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously