Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #150147 > unrolled thread

Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-02-22 07:58 -0800
    Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-02-22 09:01 -0800
      Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-03-27 19:52 -0700
    Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-02-22 11:29 -0800
      Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-02-22 19:02 -0800
        Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-02-22 19:16 -0800
      Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-03-27 19:54 -0700
        Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-03-27 20:19 -0700
          Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-03-28 05:39 +0000

#150147 — Re: Do "C" arrays start a 0 or 1?

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:21:46 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
> ...
>
>>> In a quick scan through N1570 (not including section 7), I don't see
>>> *any* uses of the term address that are inconsistent with my
>>> interpretation, except perhaps in uses of the phrase "address space".
>>> Some uses could be consistent with either your interpretation or mine.
>>
>> What I did is bring up a copy of the Standard in Adobe Reader,
>> and use the search feature to find all occurrences of the word
>> "address", including as part of another word and with no case
>> differentiation.  I went through the search results, looking
>> carefully at each usage and its surrounding context.  What I saw
>> was consistent in every case with my reading but was in some
>> cases was not consistent with your reading.  If you go through a
>> similar procedure and look carefully at every occurrence of
>> searching for the string "address" I suspect you will find some
>> that don't really fit with the idea that "address" is associated
>> with type information.
>
> I think it's safe to assume that Keith has already carried out a very
> similar process, [...]

That isn't the impression I got from reading what he said, but in
any case the only person who can speak with any authority about
it is Keith, and I was hoping to hear from him in his own words.
Your interjection has served only to derail the conversation, not
help it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#150152

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:21:46 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> ...
>>
>>>> In a quick scan through N1570 (not including section 7), I don't see
>>>> *any* uses of the term address that are inconsistent with my
>>>> interpretation, except perhaps in uses of the phrase "address space".
>>>> Some uses could be consistent with either your interpretation or mine.
>>>
>>> What I did is bring up a copy of the Standard in Adobe Reader,
>>> and use the search feature to find all occurrences of the word
>>> "address", including as part of another word and with no case
>>> differentiation.  I went through the search results, looking
>>> carefully at each usage and its surrounding context.  What I saw
>>> was consistent in every case with my reading but was in some
>>> cases was not consistent with your reading.  If you go through a
>>> similar procedure and look carefully at every occurrence of
>>> searching for the string "address" I suspect you will find some
>>> that don't really fit with the idea that "address" is associated
>>> with type information.
>>
>> I think it's safe to assume that Keith has already carried out a very
>> similar process, [...]
>
> That isn't the impression I got from reading what he said, but in
> any case the only person who can speak with any authority about
> it is Keith, and I was hoping to hear from him in his own words.
> Your interjection has served only to derail the conversation, not
> help it.

He didn't derail anything.  I had already forgotten about it, and the
expected benefit of following up is low enough that I don't think I'll
bother.  I had already provided one example.  You provided none.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150865

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:21:46 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> In a quick scan through N1570 (not including section 7), I don't see
>>>>> *any* uses of the term address that are inconsistent with my
>>>>> interpretation, except perhaps in uses of the phrase "address space".
>>>>> Some uses could be consistent with either your interpretation or mine.
>>>>
>>>> What I did is bring up a copy of the Standard in Adobe Reader,
>>>> and use the search feature to find all occurrences of the word
>>>> "address", including as part of another word and with no case
>>>> differentiation.  I went through the search results, looking
>>>> carefully at each usage and its surrounding context.  What I saw
>>>> was consistent in every case with my reading but was in some
>>>> cases was not consistent with your reading.  If you go through a
>>>> similar procedure and look carefully at every occurrence of
>>>> searching for the string "address" I suspect you will find some
>>>> that don't really fit with the idea that "address" is associated
>>>> with type information.
>>>
>>> I think it's safe to assume that Keith has already carried out a very
>>> similar process, [...]
>>
>> That isn't the impression I got from reading what he said, but in
>> any case the only person who can speak with any authority about
>> it is Keith, and I was hoping to hear from him in his own words.
>> Your interjection has served only to derail the conversation, not
>> help it.
>
> He didn't derail anything.  I had already forgotten about it, and the
> expected benefit of following up is low enough that I don't think I'll
> bother.  I had already provided one example.  You provided none.

I gave a response to a posting of yours that offered a different
point of view than one you described.  Do you think that obligates
me to try to convince you that the second point of view is right
and yours is wrong?  I was making an earnest effort to carry on a
civil conversation with you.  I didn't want the conversation to
turn into an argument.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150159

On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> 
> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:21:46 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >
> >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> In a quick scan through N1570 (not including section 7), I don't see
> >>> *any* uses of the term address that are inconsistent with my
> >>> interpretation, except perhaps in uses of the phrase "address space".
> >>> Some uses could be consistent with either your interpretation or mine.
> >>
> >> What I did is bring up a copy of the Standard in Adobe Reader,
> >> and use the search feature to find all occurrences of the word
> >> "address", including as part of another word and with no case
> >> differentiation.  I went through the search results, looking
> >> carefully at each usage and its surrounding context.  What I saw
> >> was consistent in every case with my reading but was in some
> >> cases was not consistent with your reading.  If you go through a
> >> similar procedure and look carefully at every occurrence of
> >> searching for the string "address" I suspect you will find some
> >> that don't really fit with the idea that "address" is associated
> >> with type information.
> >
> > I think it's safe to assume that Keith has already carried out a very
> > similar process, [...]
> 
> That isn't the impression I got from reading what he said,

I know - that's why I felt it important to point out the incorrectness
of your impression.

You have a tendency to incorrectly assume that people will automatically
end up agreeing with you if they just pay closer attention to the same
text that you reached your conclusion from, and a corresponding tendency
to incorrectly assume that people who disagree with you haven't paid
close attention to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150167

On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 1:29:55 PM UTC-6, James Kuyper wrote:
> On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:21:46 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> > >
> > >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>> In a quick scan through N1570 (not including section 7), I don't see
> > >>> *any* uses of the term address that are inconsistent with my
> > >>> interpretation, except perhaps in uses of the phrase "address space".
> > >>> Some uses could be consistent with either your interpretation or mine.
> > >>
> > >> What I did is bring up a copy of the Standard in Adobe Reader,
> > >> and use the search feature to find all occurrences of the word
> > >> "address", including as part of another word and with no case
> > >> differentiation.  I went through the search results, looking
> > >> carefully at each usage and its surrounding context.  What I saw
> > >> was consistent in every case with my reading but was in some
> > >> cases was not consistent with your reading.  If you go through a
> > >> similar procedure and look carefully at every occurrence of
> > >> searching for the string "address" I suspect you will find some
> > >> that don't really fit with the idea that "address" is associated
> > >> with type information.
> > >
> > > I think it's safe to assume that Keith has already carried out a very
> > > similar process, [...]
> > 
> > That isn't the impression I got from reading what he said,
> 
> I know - that's why I felt it important to point out the incorrectness
> of your impression.
> 
> You have a tendency to incorrectly assume that people will automatically
> end up agreeing with you if they just pay closer attention to the same
> text that you reached your conclusion from, and a corresponding tendency
> to incorrectly assume that people who disagree with you haven't paid
> close attention to it.

I see one in my second search result, in the same sentence as the first result. The "byte address" that is conjured for a hypothetical comparison 
to an object's address would seem not to have any particular type.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150168

On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 9:03:00 PM UTC-6, luser droog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 1:29:55 PM UTC-6, James Kuyper wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> > > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:21:46 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>> In a quick scan through N1570 (not including section 7), I don't see
> > > >>> *any* uses of the term address that are inconsistent with my
> > > >>> interpretation, except perhaps in uses of the phrase "address space".
> > > >>> Some uses could be consistent with either your interpretation or mine.
> > > >>
> > > >> What I did is bring up a copy of the Standard in Adobe Reader,
> > > >> and use the search feature to find all occurrences of the word
> > > >> "address", including as part of another word and with no case
> > > >> differentiation.  
[...]
> I see one in my second search result, in the same sentence as the first result. The "byte address" that is conjured for a hypothetical comparison 
> to an object's address would seem not to have any particular type.

Elsewhere it talks about bits having addresses albeit ones that are 
impossible to express. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150866

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:21:46 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> In a quick scan through N1570 (not including section 7), I don't see
>>>>> *any* uses of the term address that are inconsistent with my
>>>>> interpretation, except perhaps in uses of the phrase "address space".
>>>>> Some uses could be consistent with either your interpretation or mine.
>>>>
>>>> What I did is bring up a copy of the Standard in Adobe Reader,
>>>> and use the search feature to find all occurrences of the word
>>>> "address", including as part of another word and with no case
>>>> differentiation.  I went through the search results, looking
>>>> carefully at each usage and its surrounding context.  What I saw
>>>> was consistent in every case with my reading but was in some
>>>> cases was not consistent with your reading.  If you go through a
>>>> similar procedure and look carefully at every occurrence of
>>>> searching for the string "address" I suspect you will find some
>>>> that don't really fit with the idea that "address" is associated
>>>> with type information.
>>>
>>> I think it's safe to assume that Keith has already carried out a very
>>> similar process, [...]
>>
>> That isn't the impression I got from reading what he said,
>
> I know - that's why I felt it important to point out the incorrectness
> of your impression.
>
> You have a tendency to incorrectly assume that people will automatically
> end up agreeing with you if they just pay closer attention to the same
> text that you reached your conclusion from, and a corresponding tendency
> to incorrectly assume that people who disagree with you haven't paid
> close attention to it.

Please don't assume you know what I'm thinking or what motivates my
choices of what to write or how I write it.  From your comments it
is obvious that you do not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150869

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 10:54:50 PM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
...
> > You have a tendency to incorrectly assume that people will automatically
> > end up agreeing with you if they just pay closer attention to the same
> > text that you reached your conclusion from, and a corresponding tendency
> > to incorrectly assume that people who disagree with you haven't paid
> > close attention to it.
> 
> Please don't assume you know what I'm thinking or what motivates my
> choices of what to write or how I write it.  From your comments it
> is obvious that you do not.

Your behavior is consistent with the tendencies and motivations
described. Actions speak louder than words. If you don't want people to
think your behavior is so motivated, don't behave that way. Telling
people that those aren't your actual motivations is a very ineffective
way of getting them to believe you - it certainly had no effect on my
beliefs about your motivations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150870

In article <98e1325e-c896-4dc1-9d23-b2808d597249@googlegroups.com>,
James Kuyper  <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 10:54:50 PM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>...
>> > You have a tendency to incorrectly assume that people will automatically
>> > end up agreeing with you if they just pay closer attention to the same
>> > text that you reached your conclusion from, and a corresponding tendency
>> > to incorrectly assume that people who disagree with you haven't paid
>> > close attention to it.
>> 
>> Please don't assume you know what I'm thinking or what motivates my
>> choices of what to write or how I write it.  From your comments it
>> is obvious that you do not.
>
>Your behavior is consistent with the tendencies and motivations
>described. Actions speak louder than words. If you don't want people to
>think your behavior is so motivated, don't behave that way. Telling
>people that those aren't your actual motivations is a very ineffective
>way of getting them to believe you - it certainly had no effect on my
>beliefs about your motivations.

You two really need to get a room together.

-- 
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget
what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.

 - Maya Angelou -

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web