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: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 11:37:38 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <lnshls2cul.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <89549322-236e-4a59-9bb5-dc881593a846@googlegroups.com> <ob3m0b$jtr$1@dont-email.me> <1b709495-03da-462d-926f-3ee2be0a7ab5@googlegroups.com> <ob4bek$j4$1@dont-email.me> <58d642e0.2297265@news.xs4all.nl> <ob5nrt$9bt$1@dont-email.me> <ob5u0k$so5$1@dont-email.me> <ob65u2$mi8$1@dont-email.me> <58d6e0b3.20124312@news.xs4all.nl> <ob7rsv$28i$1@dont-email.me> <ob8lhg$c8m$1@dont-email.me> <obaefs$683$1@dont-email.me> <GP9CA.121449$Ip6.20100@fx38.iad> <obbhee$27u$1@dont-email.me> <874lye5usl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <obbvu0$og1$1@dont-email.me> <obdalm$45c$1@dont-email.me> <obdko2$4qi$1@dont-email.me> <obe0js$ffn$1@dont-email.me> <lnpoh15qet.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <obocus$2g8$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="36ef018e15eba2e585ee9d4de7c886c9"; logging-data="20150"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19X4kuXI5Iu3JiSAlZQQDA+"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H3lmx4ITr+pW8EfPvr2Gg5JS34Q= sha1:aVxa4rRFX6+gjyzY6XQhBcrYP/4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:107592

Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3/28/17 19:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Upon a short conversation with one of my friends today, I have recalled 
> my interference into this discussion, and have understood how wrong I 
> was.
[snip]
> This was my long way of saying I am genuinely sorry for my inadequate 
> interference. I will forebear from such comments in future.

I don't understand what you're apologizing for.  You have as much right
to participate in the discussion as anyone else.

-- 
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"