Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Most important aspect of any compiler (C or otherwise) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:08:11 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <20aae408-4b77-483a-bb84-d05f5240f415@googlegroups.com> <72742190-1138-4ed9-b3af-9065a5036220@googlegroups.com> <98c05619-b18f-42c2-bd70-3465ed66941e@googlegroups.com> <178b8843-3e1a-4db9-90f8-5f1e18650f98@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="27819"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GaslS2QWvwLZicO6l2nz0" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tHgjYzjZWuMiJ0Q44zvleaQcW1k= sha1:1Nzg1S26HPvL938FmMR9M3tVins= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:94627 jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: > On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:58:42 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >> Not at all. But I already know you have problems with reading >> comprehension. > ... >> You also seem to have reading comprehension problems with the standard. > > You routinely respond to reasoned arguments solidly supported with > valid citations from the standard by not bothering to address the > points raised, not challenging the citations as invalid, and you > almost never bother making relevant citations of your own. You simply > insult the intelligence of the person making the argument. I thought > you should know - you're not really fooling many people this way. It's > perfectly obvious that you don't address any of the points raised > because you have no arguments that can address them. You don't cite > parts of the standard to support your point of view because there are > no such parts. You don't even bother to explain what it is you think > I've misunderstood - not because you don't deign to, but simply > because you can't. James, I think you misspelled "plonk". -- 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"