Path: csiph.com!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: pointers
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:31:06 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <ln8ttc80qt.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <eddd93ef-a47b-4400-9b0b-d936ffffe329@googlegroups.com> <nuikqj$sja$2@dont-email.me> <18d7b7b9-ea72-49d3-9535-df13d560473c@googlegroups.com> <726d78eb-47b3-1b92-0203-e2f63bb740ae@verizon.net> <nujilm$4tg$1@dont-email.me> <ln7f8yd20j.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nukp62$tfg$1@dont-email.me> <lnpompbvcj.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nulcl7$sr1$1@dont-email.me> <lneg35bsfq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nulfjf$qgb$1@dont-email.me> <ln60ohblkv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nulp42$nqg$1@dont-email.me> <lnshrla4et.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <num3c9$jso$1@dont-email.me> <1b17c582-7131-4481-d83b-bb57e936a170@verizon.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2e7171af2bda6d09a7fcdc04643cbc45"; logging-data="10775"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wlavQkpPCfeAaI8GTLp1q"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C81RCavqdXfwgS/+9lgM9sfbHm0= sha1:sFsmDgH/ehaNj6YZGyHht0VlrBw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:95317

"James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
[...]
> Why isn't it convincing? It was written by the people officially
> responsible for defining what the language is. You might not like the
> way that they defined it, for any number of reasons, either valid or
> invalid. But you can't say that they're wrong - what they say defines
> what "right" means with respect to the C language.
[...]

Mostly.  The standard can be wrong when it's internally inconsistent, or
when it clearly fails to express the intent of its authors.  See, for
example, the current definition of "expression" (which, if taken
literally, implies that 42 is not an expression), and the C90 and C99
definitions of "lvalue" (both of which required corrections in later
editions).

Of course neither of those applies in the cases we're discussing.  The
question of whether &whatever is an lvalue has a single consistent and
deliberate answer: No.

-- 
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"