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: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:27:33 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 42 Message-ID: <86ftrdo60q.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> References: <5c51d4fb.236542547@news.xmission.com> <20190201132618.6ed57eb670bad5d4400ccbc8@g{oogle}mail.com> <86zhqjawoz.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> <87adaeb3-0bda-485f-82d5-2be7babd1776@googlegroups.com> <861s3kue40.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bc700592370338fe101a639d6651fadd"; logging-data="4509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18OlvTy5DPqE7yM160DCjc/km6iq3e6S0s=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:L56fS929VjNxsgea1YMl4yo594w= sha1:a1KQs7kch+08i8Kqz4IR57GRitk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:142299 James Kuyper writes: > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 12:06:31 PM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> James Kuyper writes: >> >>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 1:30:28 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> James Kuyper writes: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> I just don't see any reason (other than the fact that it didn't >>>>> use to be permitted) why it's bad to intermingle statements and >>>>> declarations, >>>> >>>> Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't make the mistake of >>>> leaping to the conclusion that just because you don't see any >>>> reason that means there isn't one. >>> >>> I don't. I'm willing to consider the possibility that there is >>> one, if a reasonable candidate is suggested - which has not yet >>> occurred. Until then, I consider that the preponderance of the >>> evidence I've collected justifies my guessing (and any statement >>> about reality is necessarily at best an informed guess) that there >>> is none. >> >> That isn't really much different than jumping to the conclusion. > > No, there's a huge difference - in the phrase "jumping to the > conclusion", the word "jump" is a metaphor for skipping the > evaluation of "the preponderance of the evidence" that I was > referring to. [...] The problem with this line of reasoning is the "evidence" you're talking about is not something independently presented but whatever "evidence" you happen to collect or think is relevant. But you aren't all that good at collecting evidence. For example, your statement elsethread "I can't imagine what the argument might be that calls for 1000+ bits [...]". You easily could have imagined such an argument if only you had done a better job of looking for evidence to back it up.