Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 12:51:04 -0500
From: Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: And they say C is obscure
References: <20170409-035940.754.0@Peabody.ssl.astraweb.com> <c49a7f80-5709-4888-80c3-ef1b40f93d75@googlegroups.com> <oen65i$feh$1@dont-email.me> <89ec64a5-8939-496c-8f67-5be593bd7f4e@googlegroups.com> <kfn60hbuw57.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <a0c429a1-7dc4-4a67-906d-6d0ec423604f@googlegroups.com> <oeuu9s$o0a$1@dont-email.me> <b32674d2-e3c4-4ec1-b5c4-ce43f19ddcdc@googlegroups.com> <oev1j7$3lr$1@dont-email.me> <oev4k0$dtf$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <oev5n7$hhv$1@dont-email.me> <oev9cp$ui0$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <oevbse$7tp$1@dont-email.me> <be921eee-e20c-449f-93ef-31873f560ebe@googlegroups.com> <oevsdt$a4a$1@dont-email.me> <d9d2a6f2-ab72-4752-a1d8-fd63c5d3c703@googlegroups.com> <of1hqg$gg9$1@dont-email.me> <87inl7d0xd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kfnpofcsokw.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <8decaab6-c961-4093-9915-a19beeb6ea00@googlegroups.com> <of9n65$j6e$1@dont-email.me>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 18:51:04 +0100
Message-ID: <87vap23t6f.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZmB6xNpNLjTILerzapNbvwfiEq4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 20
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-n22Z4F7AeK0VCXBwvWd0R5r3riRXsCYvJ1yvGL7FX6NQBhC/r8e8DTjt05wJU1NIeKwUL1Mv/e0rnY0!ttPT08MBUV1AmT+gspZLWjYvzn4CfymIO5lWEmVkQ9frF2Mib4EoX9Khwiwht8NdR2Tke7w=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2703
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:110056

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 13/05/17 18:48, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> Ben's examples kind of miss the point. They are tests of symmetry,
>> not ability to parse nesting, with the exception of D, and
>> partially E - it's legitimate enough to point out that you can
>> extend parseability by using line breaks and indenting.
>
> No, they don't miss the point - they demonstrate it quite clearly.
> They show that the concept of a hard limit at 3 levels does not exist.
>
> You can't keep adding new conditions and exceptions while
> simultaneously still claiming your "rule of three" as a rule.

Oh yes he can.  This is how peddlars of woo operate.
Make a grandiose claim, then gradually walk back the falsifiable bits of
it until all thats left is handwave and claptrap.

It's also Malcolms default (i.e. sole) mode of argument.