Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 07:41:38 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <86leqmm319.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <te6n25$16ga$1@gioia.aioe.org> <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> <tfn5bh$4mc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <865yhrpcl9.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20220913082247.233@kylheku.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e4a07c6eb40a7dcf36ed28254bbf399a"; logging-data="3147276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zp4DvGQB9rnWdfMu0d+n9esFOpe+QMN8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Uet9tlfUOdQJKL70JP0hW6tTTHI= sha1:Hjr0vYDJi4vMDmcsWfAD+MlmOII=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:167717

Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> writes:

> On 2022-09-13, Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/09/2022 05:22, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So a literal like 726163 is an object, and not a value?
>>
>> As far as ISO C is concerned, the token '726163' is a constant,
>> not a literal, and is a value rather than an object.
>
> The term "literal" in computer science is a shortening of
> "literal constant".  (There are also symbolic/manifest constants.)

I am not aware of any authoritative reference that defines the
term "literal" for the field of computer science.

In any case, my comments are only about how the terms "literal"
and "constant" are used in the ISO C standard.  This newsgroup is
comp.lang.c, and I see nothing wrong in restricting the domain of
my remarks to just that of the C language.