Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: #include <stdint.h>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 03:55:34 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <86zgrmqv6h.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <sa5vrs$7d3$1@dont-email.me> <87wnqxxoe3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86bl7vb24m.fsf@linuxsc.com> <874kdnw20s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86sg0l6uza.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87mtqs5vre.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86h7gu7dki.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87a6mm2gzj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86h7e2tawh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87h7e2hxy3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f63a7b6827eb8960d7c84af554cfeab9"; logging-data="28167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vqXQl5uwOTh3WsGpRy7bvKTjsiPQg8l8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gipwtrys5mZ14/MIGJkoPuo9NFs= sha1:fjzwm+6ylketEYoNBeQGy+SebZ4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:163013

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

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I think it's not so much misunderstanding as disagreement.
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>>     Whether the C standard "actually says" that the va_arg rules apply
>>>     to *printf functions is, I think, not an answerable question, and in
>>>     any case not really a useful question for purposes of comp.lang.c.
>>>
>>> I simply disagree.  It is an answerable question, [...]
>>
>> The question I am considering does not have an objective answer.
>> Did you not understand that?
>
> I understood what you said.  I think you're wrong.  Did you not
> understand that?

I understood your statement.  But I don't know what proposition
it is that you think is wrong.  Please note what I said:  the
question I am considering does not have an objective answer.  Are
you assuming that the question I am considering is the same as
the question you are considering?  My statement is about the
question I am considering, not about the question you are
considering.  At this point it seems apparent that they are not
the same question.  Do you agree or disagree with that last
sentence?