Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: A Note on Readability Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 12:40:52 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 54 Message-ID: <87fv6ko37f.fsf@kst-u.example.com> References: <1d72d1ba-3317-4725-bedd-698843ca9c35@googlegroups.com> <85343d47-257a-4403-9672-40991134ba13@googlegroups.com> <55587201.6548218@news.xs4all.nl> <67b5daac-4378-458c-a6d0-fbf4e20d8340@googlegroups.com> <29103fb2-ce27-4c7f-a189-8ff170f5e246@googlegroups.com> <555A2A66.1040201@verizon.net> <70adeda1-3b83-4a96-b57b-59ac062f0bc6@googlegroups.com> <87oalg2zq0.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <792ce9c8-075c-4b19-8a2f-ac75dab1a178@googlegroups.com> <87y4kj1667.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <87h9r5u97m.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <5218fb08-39ea-4b78-9e14-5d946aade48c@googlegroups.com> <878ucgsau6.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <7b99e2eb-6b33-4ad4-b4a6-647a44d1e181@googlegroups.com> <87617jq7uk.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <87iobhpwdd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <741f37ba-ad92-41ea-b666-b17eaf3ef3ff@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9be37d943435275679235b07c7947eef"; logging-data="7855"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tWo266DHxRzr3cTCQFrpQ" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:y/AWMO/8S0pnU41I3pX/6DxwPMs= sha1:jbm0jiHRxtre+P7icegYfvfR3EI= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:62612 David Kleinecke writes: > On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 1:13:29 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote: >> David Kleinecke writes: >> > Ah ha. We are using "implementation" in two different ways. >> >> Apparently so. I'm using it correctly. By "correctly" I mean the >> way it's defined by the ISO C standard, the document that defines >> the language we discuss in this newsgroup. >> >> If you insist on using terms defined by the standard with meanings >> that are inconsistent with the way the standard defines them, >> please choose different words, or at least make it very clear what >> you mean. Otherwise I can only assume you're not interested in >> communicating clearly. >> >> > To me >> > "implementation" means how the coding situation is realized. >> >> I really don't know what that's supposed to mean. Can you clarify? > > To quote the C90 standard (3.9) "implementation" means "A particular > set of software running in a particular translaion environment ubder > particular control options, that performs translation of programs for, > and supports execution of functions in, a particular execution > environment." > > That's what I mean - or at least I think it means the same thing I mean. > It's a particularly goofy way of saying it. > > I was unable to guess what you meant but it seemed different. I at least intended to use the definition of "implementation" specified in the C standard. That definition has not changed significantly with different editions of the standard. The runtime library, specified in section 7 of the standard, is clearly part of the "implementation". You seem to have been using it in a sense that excludes the standard library. Did I misunderstand you? > I dunno about you but, like Hunpty-Dumpty, I am in charge of what I say - > not the standard. My words are all meant as ordinary English words > unless I sopecifically label them as technical or they only have > technical meaning (eg "struct"). I ask you what you mean by "implementation", and you cite the definition given in the standard. Then you make this statement about Humpty Dumpty (which is usually used as an example of how *not* to communicate clearly). Do you see a contradiction there? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"