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: absence of max
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:43:58 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <lnh96n7amp.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <0e1db67d-0ab8-4971-a319-8aa66a40b873@googlegroups.com> <o1f2js$7sr$1@dont-email.me> <cefcbabd-ddcd-4f87-ac64-c99c53a828e9@googlegroups.com> <436aadfe-20e5-4349-bdf4-9bac145b0d7e@googlegroups.com> <e22bbfbe-249b-44e8-806d-f29802be04c6@googlegroups.com> <o1hujs$md0$1@dont-email.me> <87oa0zi280.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1ii3h$pa$1@dont-email.me> <871sxvhw4i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1jo1p$i5$1@dont-email.me> <87wpfl251i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1l79e$k98$1@dont-email.me> <o1lgr5$3nr$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <o1mctf$egl$1@dont-email.me> <o1mmbg$erc$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <o1mn94$i7n$1@dont-email.me> <o1njhr$21u$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <o1nnap$h47$1@dont-email.me> <o1op24$6af$1@dont-email.me> <87mvgfzyja.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1p63t$i6d$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e9e90b81bc42428c034e25748a0d26e9"; logging-data="701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HGUXXP0TityaKhcl3EP4A"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UX6r83XUBrjOX3cvk6BFx/UAqN8= sha1:FulzmP7UbJUwgkqMAD14XCxcJNo=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:97829

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 01/12/16 12:20, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
[...]
>> I'm very surprised to see you write that.  C's array types stand out
>> amongst all it objects types because they can't be assigned nor passed
>> to or returned from functions.  That seems to be the hole BartC is
>> referring to and, until I saw this post, I'd assumed it was not a
>> contentious statement.
>
> What I really meant is that it is not a problem in C.  Yes, C array
> types are a bit different from other types - but I don't see it as a
> "hole" or a problem here.  It is just the way C works.  There are many
> aspects of C and C types that are inconsistent (such as Supercat's
> favourite, the way unsigned short types can get promoted to signed ints
> leading to undefined behaviour).  But the way arrays work in C is not a
> "hole in the type system" - it is just a little odd.

Now all we need is a rigorous definition of "hole", and we can all
agree.

-- 
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"