Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:57:01 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <875ztub1vq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87ftsva8o7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <62e2da0a-0d2d-49d5-8535-8ebf922eb014@googlegroups.com> <87a7j39ho4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <75fe55ac-a651-454a-a1c4-5d63a290b1cb@googlegroups.com> <87sgwumf7m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87mun1n5s4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3a070eb4-bc4f-4e8f-bcc6-2ac10ff9dd93@googlegroups.com> <87bm3hm1k0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87k1i4l2rq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8d0f14e9-5fa9-4eba-ae9e-f7c7c6adbd00@googlegroups.com> <9fde77b9-146e-469b-acca-4ca8fa6ca7a3@googlegroups.com> <59d99fab-ec13-4a0c-8314-e019c1c7f98e@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="df68539e0dc28145269a7d8b79005c9c"; logging-data="11626"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LQ+Z/3VQ0kPeRy8p2cNfK" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZPvCs7/kJP6R7HlbIKNzRDcXme4= sha1:fp6NUdP+/isZBRtJ336Oj72KqfQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:140960 Malcolm McLean writes: > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. > > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ > > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: > > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written in the formal language > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language That web page describes using EBNF to define a grammar. It does not support your claim. At all. The word "valid" in the excerpt you quoted refers to *syntactic* validity, in the sense defined in ISO C Annex A. I'm pleased that you've finally acknowledged what the rest of us mean by "grammar". I'm still frustrated that you continue to insist on your own meaning, and I don't expect that to change. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Will write code for food. void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */