Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:15:06 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <89549322-236e-4a59-9bb5-dc881593a846@googlegroups.com> <1b709495-03da-462d-926f-3ee2be0a7ab5@googlegroups.com> <58d642e0.2297265@news.xs4all.nl> <58d6e0b3.20124312@news.xs4all.nl> <874lye5usl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="621a15f5f24560a56e85ad6532f35357"; logging-data="2469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+r67bjI2nQeVeJ7n6s7IZr" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LyT5+c661wK/NuIFRkrBeWl/DOI= sha1:GGKnmJ1vInfg0Lw9C1syiEPzrJc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:107275 Alla writes: > On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >> >> >>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >> >> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing >> about them. > > I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-) [...] Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness is a fairly minor point. -- 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"