Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #102786

Re: comparison logic

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: comparison logic
Date 2017-01-30 11:40 -0800
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <ln1svkbal2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <kfny3yem2p3.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnd1fpjofi.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnwpdvk43o.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnfukjfvd3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnmve8hfz6.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> Provided 'i' is not a volatile-qualified int variable!  (Sorry, I can't
>>>>>> resit nit-picking.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there is a second-order nit-picking rule in play here,
>>>>> analogous to the rule about pointing out a spelling correction.
>>>>> (yes, I can't resit either.)
>>>>
>>>> What is a "variable"?
>>>
>>> I assume the word "variable" here is supposed to mean a declared
>>> compile-time entity that corresponds to an object at run-time.
>>> Given the context, I don't know what else it could mean.
>>
>> Of course.  The context was silly nitpicking, and the standard doesn't
>> use the word "variable" in that sense.
>
> It doesn't, but I don't understand why you think of your
> statement as nitpicking, since the original context doesn't
> represent "variable" as being used in any sense other than the
> regular English usage.  Or maybe you thought of it as a silly
> nitpick?  The earlier comments were a bit silly, but I didn't
> think either of their nitpicks were silly, just nitpicks.

I'm not entirely sure what the "regular English usage" of the word
"variable" is at it applies to C.  In Ben's nitpick, "object"
would have been more accurate than "variable".  For example, it
would apply to a const-qualified object, which isn't something
I'd refer to as a "variable".  (There are also questions about
whether a struct member or an array element is a "variable", but
those don't apply assuming `i` is meant to be taken literally as
a single identifier, and presumably not a macro.)

-- 
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"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-07 23:49 -0800
  Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-08 21:20 +1300
    Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-08 01:32 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 11:08 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 03:25 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0100
            OT Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:18 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-01-08 15:38 -0800
        Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 18:46 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 04:13 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 12:21 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 00:23 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-16 06:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 05:10 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-02-04 17:12 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 20:47 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-13 01:58 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 10:41 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 03:49 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 12:03 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 14:02 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 13:46 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:23 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:31 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 16:18 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 17:49 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 17:21 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 10:12 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 21:59 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:12 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 11:39 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-14 16:03 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 11:51 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 02:04 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 23:48 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 20:28 +0000
                The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:14 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 14:29 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 01:40 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-15 11:43 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-18 19:55 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:22 +0000
              Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 16:05 +0100
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 15:37 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 16:06 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 19:37 +0100
                Re: comparison logic BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-13 18:42 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 18:49 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 20:50 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-14 01:05 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:27 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 13:56 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-15 14:45 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 20:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-15 21:04 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 04:47 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 11:40 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 16:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 18:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 21:03 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 08:07 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 08:50 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 12:15 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 12:38 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 14:13 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 14:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-12 10:20 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-12 14:32 +0000
          Re: linking precedence rules James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-12 13:33 -0500

csiph-web