Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:51:16 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <ln1sth5j6j.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <89549322-236e-4a59-9bb5-dc881593a846@googlegroups.com> <ob3m0b$jtr$1@dont-email.me> <1b709495-03da-462d-926f-3ee2be0a7ab5@googlegroups.com> <ob4bek$j4$1@dont-email.me> <58d642e0.2297265@news.xs4all.nl> <ob5nrt$9bt$1@dont-email.me> <ob5u0k$so5$1@dont-email.me> <ob65u2$mi8$1@dont-email.me> <58d6e0b3.20124312@news.xs4all.nl> <ob7rsv$28i$1@dont-email.me> <ob8lhg$c8m$1@dont-email.me> <obaefs$683$1@dont-email.me> <GP9CA.121449$Ip6.20100@fx38.iad> <obbhee$27u$1@dont-email.me> <874lye5usl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <obbvu0$og1$1@dont-email.me> <obdalm$45c$1@dont-email.me> <obdko2$4qi$1@dont-email.me> <obe0js$ffn$1@dont-email.me> <lnpoh15qet.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <obe7ob$8kb$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="621a15f5f24560a56e85ad6532f35357"; logging-data="13986"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qXxb0E0uCLTBpsp5mRTEa"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:62Rn4WV0sV1FDYwLBQ1ROmwQmUk= sha1:6sit+uIvZVMJ5wWCBanteQv6kkc=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:107301

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 28/03/17 17:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the
>>>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here.
>>>>
>>>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing
>>>> about them.
>>>
>>> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-)
>> [...]
>>
>> Not at all.  It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of
>> opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of
>> view.  The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness
>> is a fairly minor point.
>
> Agreed (although if it /were/ about technical correctness we'd be
> finished by now).
>
> I am trying hard to understand why people object to
> constant-on-the-left, and so far I'm failing... but I'm still trying.

Let me ask you a question.  This won't resolve the issue, but it
might result in some small progress.

Suppose C had been designed a little differently, so that the
assignment operator is ":=", the equality operator is "==", and a
single "=" is a syntax error.  The rest of the language is left as
it is.

I think you'd agree that there would then be little or no danger
of confusing assignment vs. equality; something like `if (x := 3)`
would not be confused with `if (x == 3)`.  (If you don't agree,
then please assume it for the sake of argument, or feel free to
suggest a different pair of symbols.)

Granting that you would not find `if (3 == x)` problematic, would you
ever *write* `if (3 == x)` in such a language?  And how surprised
would you be to see `if (3 == x)` rather than `if (x == 3)` in
someone else's code?  (Surprised in the sense of "hmm", not "ick".)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
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"