Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #103529
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: comparison logic |
| Date | 2017-02-09 08:50 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lna89vz4u5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <ln1svkbal2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfntw8aaird.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <ln4m0a4qtn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfno9yc6jnf.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <bd6404d9-449e-40cf-a15b-50045ce4c5ad@googlegroups.com> |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
[...]
> I would values a piece of code might use as falling into five categories,
> relative to any piece of code that might want to use them:
>
> 1. Constants whose values are established at compile time
> 2. Constants whose values get hard-coded in the executable by the linker.
[...]
> 3. Values which won't be known until runtime, but which once observed
> can be expected to hold the same value forevermore.
> 4. Values which the piece of code can't change, but which might or might
> not be able to change via other means.
> 5. Values which the piece of code can change.
>
> I would say that #1-#2 are not "variables"; if a language can distinguish
> between #3 and #4, it may be useful to use a term other than "variables"
> for #3. I would suggest that #4 should be called "variables" whether or
> not any means *actually* exists via which they can change, if code has to
> treat them as though they might.
I suggest that this kind of thing is exactly why the standard avoids
using the word "variable".
--
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
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