Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #133735 > unrolled thread
| Started by | skybuck2000@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-13 12:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-10 18:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
>< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-08-13 12:53 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 16:05 -0400
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:46 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:19 +0300
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-08-14 06:16 -0700
Re: >< swap operator bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-08-14 07:50 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-14 16:59 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-08-14 10:46 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-14 20:03 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-08-14 11:37 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-14 21:16 +0200
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:32 -0700
Re: >< swap operator bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-08-14 16:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-15 11:32 +0200
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-10-01 07:46 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 05:20 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 13:58 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 14:08 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:16 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-02 15:35 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:43 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 10:51 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:08 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 15:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 10:52 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 17:57 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:27 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:52 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 20:48 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 13:26 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 21:36 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 13:47 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 11:14 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:37 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 22:02 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:16 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 11:25 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-03 10:52 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 14:29 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:52 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-03 21:31 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:47 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 03:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:47 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 04:25 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 20:44 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 11:53 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 05:15 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 13:48 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:01 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-04 22:15 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 16:19 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 21:42 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:01 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 23:59 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 09:54 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 18:03 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 21:08 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-05 20:31 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-10-05 15:59 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 21:18 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 03:51 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 12:19 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 19:49 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 12:25 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-07 14:19 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 06:56 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-07 16:30 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 13:17 +0200
C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 13:07 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 14:27 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-10 00:05 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 02:03 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-11 01:05 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 02:09 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 12:39 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-11 16:24 +0100
Re: C idioms scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 15:55 +0000
Re: C idioms Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 09:42 -0700
Re: C idioms Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 19:23 +0200
Re: C idioms jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-11 11:11 -0700
Re: C idioms Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 12:05 -0700
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 17:53 +0100
Re: C idioms Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 10:38 -0700
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-12 00:14 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 19:26 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 16:38 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 15:23 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 20:31 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 20:18 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 22:11 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-09 20:50 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 22:58 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 22:34 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 08:10 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-09 14:45 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 08:07 +0200
Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 07:56 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 10:32 +0200
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-10-10 13:44 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:52 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-10 17:47 +0200
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:18 +0200
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 15:22 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 23:58 +0200
Re: Hmmm... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-10 07:51 -0600
Re: Hmmm... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:53 +0000
Re: Hmmm... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:21 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 12:57 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-10 12:29 -0400
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:07 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-09 14:50 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 08:13 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 12:56 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 15:55 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 15:17 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 14:49 +0000
Fall-through in switch statements... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:59 +0000
Re: Fall-through in switch statements... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 16:09 +0100
Re: Fall-through in switch statements... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2018-10-10 17:29 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 16:01 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:29 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-10 17:55 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 17:11 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-10 23:15 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:16 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 23:23 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 16:31 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 15:32 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 16:24 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 10:52 +0200
Re: C idioms Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-10 09:59 -0600
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:26 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 14:48 +0000
Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:51 +0000
Re: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 15:20 +0000
You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 15:28 +0000
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:23 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 13:22 +0000
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 15:58 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 14:17 +0000
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 16:42 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 16:53 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 20:11 +0200
Re: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:20 +0200
Re: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 16:15 -0700
Re: Return values of fork() Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-11 14:42 -0600
Re: C idioms Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-09 16:18 -0600
Re: C idioms gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 22:28 +0000
Re: C idioms scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 12:58 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:48 -0700
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-09 16:42 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 19:40 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 12:38 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 23:41 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 19:38 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 15:04 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-07 16:37 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 16:58 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 12:17 -0400
Grammar police! (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-07 20:37 +0000
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-07 09:31 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 18:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-07 14:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 22:35 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-08 02:56 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-08 10:48 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 12:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-10-08 16:00 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 17:44 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 10:39 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 20:08 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 11:22 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-09 09:25 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 20:43 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 20:15 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 22:26 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-10-08 21:09 +0000
Re: >< swap operator David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 15:18 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 07:55 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 11:24 +0200
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-08 07:19 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 16:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-10 10:59 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 19:53 +0100
Re: >< swap operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-07 18:00 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-07 17:10 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 01:25 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-08 02:51 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 11:29 +0100
Re: >< swap operator mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 04:41 -0700
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-08 07:56 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 08:36 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 17:34 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-08 21:35 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 22:00 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-09 00:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 01:11 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-09 02:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 00:49 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 11:28 +0100
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 13:00 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 10:28 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 10:49 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-07 20:00 -0600
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-06 13:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 23:35 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 03:49 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-06 16:18 +0200
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-06 14:48 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-06 12:53 -0700
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-07 16:38 +0000
Re: >< swap operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-07 15:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-07 16:53 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 17:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-07 17:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 01:30 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-07 19:12 -0600
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 18:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 19:41 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-06 13:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 02:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-07 12:41 +0200
100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 00:22 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 01:55 +0100
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 03:58 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 11:51 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 13:09 +0100
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 05:26 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 05:40 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 12:46 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-06 12:46 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 12:49 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 06:27 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-07 12:47 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 09:03 -0400
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-07 16:47 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 10:17 +0200
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 09:20 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 10:58 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 12:09 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-05 03:11 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 14:25 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:39 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 15:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 17:30 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:41 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 17:56 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:00 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-10-05 12:34 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:48 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-10-05 13:55 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-05 11:20 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 14:45 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-10-05 21:39 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 08:51 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-11-25 14:18 -0800
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-05 15:46 +0300
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:16 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 15:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:18 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:32 +0300
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:34 -0400
Of course it is crazy! (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 15:17 +0000
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 18:30 +0000
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 14:48 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 15:06 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 13:55 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:14 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 16:18 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:21 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 17:27 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 15:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:28 -0400
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 14:46 +0000
When pigs fly... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 16:10 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:35 +0300
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:46 -0400
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 15:15 +0000
6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 13:20 +0000
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:28 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 17:53 +0200
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:56 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 18:17 +0200
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:21 -0700
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 18:50 +0200
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:52 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 13:05 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 03:42 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 15:59 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 03:45 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-04 11:22 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 20:35 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 13:28 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:59 +0100
Re: >< swap operator John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:56 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:03 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-03 14:37 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:51 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 15:39 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:05 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:09 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 16:22 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:29 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 20:52 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:57 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 16:06 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-03 00:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-10-02 19:21 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 11:21 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:43 -0700
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-02 21:01 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 14:29 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 22:37 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 21:01 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:06 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 21:45 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:09 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:11 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:22 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:17 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-02 15:04 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Niles Rogoff <eternal-september@niles.xyz> - 2018-10-03 18:28 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:50 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-14 17:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 02:22 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 02:34 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 03:09 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 03:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 04:51 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 05:06 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-15 04:21 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-08-15 14:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 07:08 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-08-15 16:52 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-08-15 15:51 +0000
Re: >< swap operator John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:59 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 03:06 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 11:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:27 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 15:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 11:01 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 10:54 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:39 -0700
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:10 -0700
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:24 -0700
Page 11 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 18 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 00:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878t38vw4y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136442 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 08/10/2018 21:35, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Yet Ben said this:
>>>
>>> " There are none in C -- no expressions can be written as standalone
>>> statements."
>>>
>>> Which is completely misleading. Is it completely impossible to write
>>> a[i+1] as a standalone statement, or not? That remark suggests it is
>>> not possible, yet you can do it.
>>
>> Why do you object to all the accurate wordings, such as "any expression
>> can be turned into a statement by appending a semicolon"?
>
> I object to this whole line of debate since I can't see what the need
> for a semicolon brings to it or how it is relevant.
That's going to be a problem. If you pretend not to see how tokens map
to syntax, we will be at a dead-end.
> But as it happens, it's not accurate - you can't locate any expression
> in a program, and add a semicolon to it.
By all means find wording that resolves this quibble.
> You can only have such expressions where a regular statement can
> legally go. Most such statements (exceptions include labels and {})
> will necessarily end with semicolon. So its presence there following
> an expression is no surprise.
This adds nothing to the debate. You can only have statements where
statements go, and expressions where expressions go.
> Does that
>> wording somehow not allow you state your latest gripe about C?
>>
>> This is why I've said you appear to argue like a politician. Whatever
>> your technical point is (I think it's that C allows pointless statements
>> by permitting all expression forms to appear in an expression
>> statement), it has become completely lost in your desire to push a turn
>> of phrase which puts, for you, the right spin on the issue.
>>
>> I see no reason at all that we could all agree on these facts:
>>
>> (a) C's grammar defines syntactic entities for expressions and for
>> statements.
>>
>> (b) No token sequence that will parse as an expression will also parse
>> as a statement -- and vice versa.
>>
>> (c) If E is a token sequence that parses as an expression, E ; parses as
>> a statement (often called a statement expression).
>>
>> (d) Many syntactically valid expression statements are pointless because
>> they can have no effect on the program's execution.
>>
>> Do you really insist on some other way of stating these facts, or do you
>> actually dispute that they are facts?
>
> I might agree on (a) and (d). But I disagree with (b) and (c). Regarding (b):
>
> For the 'i+1' part of 'a[i+1]', my implementation makes a call to a
> function called readexpression().
>
> For the 'i+1' part of 'i+1;', my implementation also makes a call to
> readexpression().
So what? (b) is true and you have no reason to disagree with it.
> Regarding (c), if I turn a[i+1] into a[i+1;] then that's not going to
> work.
In this supposed counter-example, what is the E that parses as an
expression, but E ; does not?
> Now you're going to tell me how I'm wrong because the standard says
> something different, and only one of us can be right.
No I am going to ask you how you can think this is a counter-example.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 01:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <DmSuD.51004$522.39424@fx35.am4> |
| In reply to | #136450 |
On 09/10/2018 00:47, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> I might agree on (a) and (d). But I disagree with (b) and (c). Regarding (b):
>>
>> For the 'i+1' part of 'a[i+1]', my implementation makes a call to a
>> function called readexpression().
>>
>> For the 'i+1' part of 'i+1;', my implementation also makes a call to
>> readexpression().
>
> So what? (b) is true and you have no reason to disagree with it.
>
>> Regarding (c), if I turn a[i+1] into a[i+1;] then that's not going to
>> work.
>
> In this supposed counter-example, what is the E that parses as an
> expression, but E ; does not?
You said "if E is token sequence that parses as an expression". OK,
let's say that's the "i+1" sequence inside "a[i+1]". You said that E; or
"i+1;" will parse as a statement.
It won't. Only if you relocate the "i+1" to a place where it can be a
statement.
But since you brought up the notation E, presumably to represent a
sequence that is an expression (and that might be recognised by my
readexpression() routine), let's use that.
So E is an expression in most contexts (there's a small quibble about it
being one in argument lists, there it needs to be an
assignment-expression, but leave that aside).
So I can use the /expression/ E here:
a[E]
And I can use the expression E here, assuming it's OK to write a
statement here:
E;
Example:
if (E) { // expr
E; // expr-stmt
E; // expr-stmt
else if ((E)<5) { // expr
a[E] = b[E]; // expr, expr
E, E; // expr, expr
In the last line, the Es are expressions, but they form a new expression
which is an expression-statement.
What's clear here is that you can't just change from expr to/from
expr-stmt just by adding or removing a semicolon. Because you'd end up
with this:
if (E;) { // ??
E // ??
E // ??
else if ((E;)<5) { // ??
a[E;] = b[E;]; // ??
E, E // ?? - ?
(The last line may be possibly be saved depending on what comes.)
TBH I don't know any more what it is I'm arguing about, other than
refuting statements of yours that I don't believe are correct. Or if
they are correct, they are misleading, such as your:
" There are none in C -- no expressions can be written as standalone
statements."
--
bart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 02:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87woqrvqlm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136451 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 09/10/2018 00:47, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> I might agree on (a) and (d). But I disagree with (b) and (c). Regarding (b):
>>>
>>> For the 'i+1' part of 'a[i+1]', my implementation makes a call to a
>>> function called readexpression().
>>>
>>> For the 'i+1' part of 'i+1;', my implementation also makes a call to
>>> readexpression().
>>
>> So what? (b) is true and you have no reason to disagree with it.
>>
>>> Regarding (c), if I turn a[i+1] into a[i+1;] then that's not going to
>>> work.
>>
>> In this supposed counter-example, what is the E that parses as an
>> expression, but E ; does not?
That should have been "but E ; does not parse as a statement" but I
think you got what's needed for a counter-example.
> You said "if E is token sequence that parses as an expression". OK,
> let's say that's the "i+1" sequence inside "a[i+1]". You said that E;
> or "i+1;" will parse as a statement.
i+1; is indeed a production of the grammar's non-terminal for
"statement". My short-hand for that was "parses as a statement". I'm
sorry if that was not clear.
> It won't. Only if you relocate the "i+1" to a place where it can be a
> statement.
Obviously I was not clear. i+1 won't parse as an expression in all
contexts, but that is not what I mean by "parses as an expression". The
token sequence i+1 is a valid production from the grammar non-terminal
"expression".
So trying to home-in on wording that is both correct and mutually
understood, would you accept these facts instead:
(a) C's grammar has as non-terminals for 'expression' and for
'statement'.
(b) No token sequence produced by 'expression' can also be a production
from 'statement' -- and vice-verse.
(c) If E is a token sequence produced from 'expression', E ; is a token
sequence produced from 'statement'.
(d) Many syntactically valid expression statements are pointless because
they can have no effect on the program's execution.
It's a shame it's getting so clunky -- I'd hoped "parses as an X" would
not be too ambiguous, but I was wrong. Feel free to firm it some more
if you still find it too vague.
> TBH I don't know any more what it is I'm arguing about,
I am defending the notion that C strictly separates expressions from
statements. No thing that is an is also a statement, nor vice-versa.
The "things" here are token sequences, and the "is" refers to that
sequence being a production from the corresponding grammar non-terminal.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 00:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00092bab-9f43-4149-909f-84b90b99d27e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #136456 |
On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 02:47:09 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: I'm coming to the conclusion that Bart is either a troll or incapable of engaging in rational debate. Either way, reading exchanges with him leads me to ponder the "wrestling a pig" problem - that you both get muddy and the pig likes it. I suppose the only value in countering his arguments is to ensure that anyone else reading these threads sees that his is not the only point of view and to make it clear that his description of C is frequently inaccurate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 11:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <zp%uD.14890$6N5.10595@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #136460 |
On 09/10/2018 08:49, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 02:47:09 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > I'm coming to the conclusion that Bart is either a troll or incapable > of engaging in rational debate. > Huh. I'm coming to the same conclusion myself about others. > I suppose the only value in countering his arguments is to ensure that > anyone else reading these threads sees that his is not the only point of > view and to make it clear that his description of C is frequently > inaccurate. And this is the third time I'm re-posting this quote, which did not come from me: " There are none in C -- no expressions can be written as standalone statements." Would you really let that go? You'd almost think the main intention of some people is to prove Bart wrong rather than express anything worthwhile about the language. I've seen nonsense also from jameskuyper (how routinely using ?: as statement level is perfectly fine).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppi8os$kfu$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #136460 |
In article <00092bab-9f43-4149-909f-84b90b99d27e@googlegroups.com>, <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, 9 October 2018 02:47:09 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >I'm coming to the conclusion that Bart is either a troll or incapable >of engaging in rational debate. > >Either way, reading exchanges with him leads me to ponder the "wrestling >a pig" problem - that you both get muddy and the pig likes it. > >I suppose the only value in countering his arguments is to ensure that >anyone else reading these threads sees that his is not the only point of >view and to make it clear that his description of C is frequently >inaccurate. > Or to feed your own ego and assert your manhood. -- > No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me, > why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere. CLC in a nutshell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr2h0z6t6.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136427 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> So if I take the expression "a[i+1]" which I can use like this inside
>> the argument list here:
>>
>> f(a[i+1]);
>>
>> you say I can't take the same expression and write it as a standalone
>> statement like this:
>>
>> a[i+1];
>>
>> Even though, actually, I can.
>
> This will be my last attempt to explain this to you. I'm almost
> certainly wasting my time.
>
> To avoid any confusion, I'm using `...` to separate C code from English
> text.
>
> `a[i+1]` is an expression. It is not, and cannot be, a statement.
>
> `a[i+1];` is a statement. It is not, and cannot be, an expression.
>
> You cannot use `a[i+1]` as a statement. You can turn it into a
> statement by adding a semicolon.
>
> It is the semicolon that makes the difference, your insistence on
> minimizing it or ignoring it notwithstanding.
>
> [...]
There's a possible misunderstanding that occurred to me after I wrote
the above. The semicolon is unambiguously *part of* the syntax of the
statement. For example, this:
return 42;
isn't a return statement followed by a semicolon. It's a return
statement consisting of three tokens: `return`, `42`, and `;`. And
there's no explicit general rule about statements being terminated
by semicolons; the grammar production for each kind of statement
(except for the compound-statement) includes the semicolon token.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnftxgz5uh.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136432 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
> There's a possible misunderstanding that occurred to me after I wrote
> the above. The semicolon is unambiguously *part of* the syntax of the
> statement. For example, this:
>
> return 42;
>
> isn't a return statement followed by a semicolon. It's a return
> statement consisting of three tokens: `return`, `42`, and `;`. And
> there's no explicit general rule about statements being terminated
> by semicolons; the grammar production for each kind of statement
> (except for the compound-statement) includes the semicolon token.
Let me amend my previous, um, statement.
There are several kinds of statements whose syntax does not include
a trailing semicolon. The ones that do are:
expression-statement (which includes the null statement)
do/while
goto
continue
break
return
An if statement, for example, might end in a semicolon if the
substatement does.
Anyone who thinks semicolons are unimportant should consider
if (condition) do_something();
vs.
if (condition); do_something();
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 20:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1b1s912o5p.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #136410 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 08/10/2018 01:10, Keith Thompson wrote: >> >> Of course these cases have no relevance to whatever point Bart is >> failing to make. > > Or others are failing to understand, being hung up on the exact > grammar used to define expressions and statements. Something many really stupid reviewers inadvertently beat into my head, back in the days when I needed to get articles past peer review (ie before I retired): if the reader fails to understand, you have failed to make your point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln4ldy3km1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136331 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> So ANY expression can be made into a statement.
Yes.
> So any expression can BE
> a statement, just by sticking a semicolon on the end.
No.
[...]
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp8sg1$k30$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #136306 |
In article <87va6gjile.fsf@bsb.me.uk>, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> It's because there is a strict demarcation between statements, and >> expressions (unlike in C where any statement is also an expression). > >I don't know what you intended to write there but what came out is >wrong. Statements in C are not also expressions. In fact C also has a >strict demarcation between statements and expressions. It must hurt to be this stupid. -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Infallibility
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 03:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bec06218-c93f-46ac-8f0a-eb185d5f7daf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #136306 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 8:31:50 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
> > It's because there is a strict demarcation between statements, and
> > expressions (unlike in C where any statement is also an expression).
>
> I don't know what you intended to write there but what came out is
> wrong. Statements in C are not also expressions. In fact C also has a
> strict demarcation between statements and expressions.
>
If it did then
if(x = 2)
{
/* this always executes */
}
would be a syntax error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 16:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ppag85$8e6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136328 |
On 06/10/18 12:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 8:31:50 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> It's because there is a strict demarcation between statements, and
>>> expressions (unlike in C where any statement is also an expression).
>>
>> I don't know what you intended to write there but what came out is
>> wrong. Statements in C are not also expressions. In fact C also has a
>> strict demarcation between statements and expressions.
>>
> If it did then
>
> if(x = 2)
> {
> /* this always executes */
> }
>
> would be a syntax error.
>
>
>
"x = 2" is an expression - why should there be a syntax error?
(You can well argue that assignment should be a statement and not an
expression - but that would be a separate issue.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 14:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AW3uD.134311$MN2.15023@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #136344 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 06/10/18 12:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 8:31:50 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> It's because there is a strict demarcation between statements, and
>>>> expressions (unlike in C where any statement is also an expression).
>>>
>>> I don't know what you intended to write there but what came out is
>>> wrong. Statements in C are not also expressions. In fact C also has a
>>> strict demarcation between statements and expressions.
>>>
>> If it did then
>>
>> if(x = 2)
>> {
>> /* this always executes */
>> }
>>
>> would be a syntax error.
>>
>>
>>
>
>"x = 2" is an expression - why should there be a syntax error?
>
>(You can well argue that assignment should be a statement and not an
>expression - but that would be a separate issue.)
I believe GCC will warn on that case (-Wall), and if (-Werror), then
it is, indeed a syntax error :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd0sm3l97.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136345 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>On 06/10/18 12:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
[...]
>>> If it did then
>>>
>>> if(x = 2)
>>> {
>>> /* this always executes */
>>> }
>>>
>>> would be a syntax error.
>>
>>"x = 2" is an expression - why should there be a syntax error?
>>
>>(You can well argue that assignment should be a statement and not an
>>expression - but that would be a separate issue.)
>
> I believe GCC will warn on that case (-Wall), and if (-Werror), then
> it is, indeed a syntax error :-)
I see the smiley, but I'm not sure what the joke is. That's not what
"syntax error" means.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0EquD.234726$HK2.219472@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #136358 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>On 06/10/18 12:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>[...]
>>>> If it did then
>>>>
>>>> if(x = 2)
>>>> {
>>>> /* this always executes */
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> would be a syntax error.
>>>
>>>"x = 2" is an expression - why should there be a syntax error?
>>>
>>>(You can well argue that assignment should be a statement and not an
>>>expression - but that would be a separate issue.)
>>
>> I believe GCC will warn on that case (-Wall), and if (-Werror), then
>> it is, indeed a syntax error :-)
>
>I see the smiley, but I'm not sure what the joke is. That's not what
>"syntax error" means.
In the sense that the compile is terminated without generating an object file
as if it were a syntax error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 15:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppdocu$epc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136393 |
On 10/07/2018 12:38 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>> On 06/10/18 12:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> If it did then
>>>>>
>>>>> if(x = 2)
>>>>> {
>>>>> /* this always executes */
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> would be a syntax error.
>>>>
>>>> "x = 2" is an expression - why should there be a syntax error?
>>>>
>>>> (You can well argue that assignment should be a statement and not an
>>>> expression - but that would be a separate issue.)
>>>
>>> I believe GCC will warn on that case (-Wall), and if (-Werror), then
>>> it is, indeed a syntax error :-)
>>
>> I see the smiley, but I'm not sure what the joke is. That's not what
>> "syntax error" means.
>
> In the sense that the compile is terminated without generating an object file
> as if it were a syntax error.
Well, many things can cause a compilation to terminate without
generating an object file, including constraint violations, exceeding an
implementation's limits, or triggering a bug in the implementation. And
syntax errors don't necessarily terminate compilation without generating
an object file - many extensions to C take the form of giving meaning to
constructs that qualify as syntax errors in C.
So, I'd says that calling something a syntax error when it isn't, just
because it has some consequences that are similar the consequences that
sometime occur when a syntax error is present, is a pretty dumb abuse of
the term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnlg791fge.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136393 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>On 06/10/18 12:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>[...]
>>>>> If it did then
>>>>>
>>>>> if(x = 2)
>>>>> {
>>>>> /* this always executes */
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> would be a syntax error.
>>>>
>>>>"x = 2" is an expression - why should there be a syntax error?
>>>>
>>>>(You can well argue that assignment should be a statement and not an
>>>>expression - but that would be a separate issue.)
>>>
>>> I believe GCC will warn on that case (-Wall), and if (-Werror), then
>>> it is, indeed a syntax error :-)
>>
>>I see the smiley, but I'm not sure what the joke is. That's not what
>>"syntax error" means.
>
> In the sense that the compile is terminated without generating an
> object file as if it were a syntax error.
The phrase "syntax error" does not mean "any error that terminates
compilation", though I've seen the term used that way. Errors that
require a diagnostic (and may also terminate compilation) are divided
between syntax errors and constraint violations (and the #error
directive, and possibly some cases of undefined behavior).
I understand your intent now, but it's based on a misuse of the phrase.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 17:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3da81a9f-b4cb-4eb5-8988-9e42cf0c8886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #136406 |
On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:53:44 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> >>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >>>>On 06/10/18 12:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>[...]
> >>>>> If it did then
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if(x = 2)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> /* this always executes */
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> would be a syntax error.
> >>>>
> >>>>"x = 2" is an expression - why should there be a syntax error?
> >>>>
> >>>>(You can well argue that assignment should be a statement and not an
> >>>>expression - but that would be a separate issue.)
> >>>
> >>> I believe GCC will warn on that case (-Wall), and if (-Werror), then
> >>> it is, indeed a syntax error :-)
> >>
> >>I see the smiley, but I'm not sure what the joke is. That's not what
> >>"syntax error" means.
> >
> > In the sense that the compile is terminated without generating an
> > object file as if it were a syntax error.
>
> The phrase "syntax error" does not mean "any error that terminates
> compilation", though I've seen the term used that way. Errors that
> require a diagnostic (and may also terminate compilation) are divided
> between syntax errors and constraint violations (and the #error
> directive, and possibly some cases of undefined behavior).
>
> I understand your intent now, but it's based on a misuse of the phrase.
>
> --
> 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"
A compiler writer has a choice of strategies. In the
case of a syntax error it is usually quite fussy to get
back into the flow but a constraint violation can be
reported and compilation resumed. That is my approach -
syntax violations end compilation but a constraint
violation causes a report and the end of code generation,
but code checking continues.
.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7eit1e0x.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136407 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:53:44 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> The phrase "syntax error" does not mean "any error that terminates
>> compilation", though I've seen the term used that way. Errors that
>> require a diagnostic (and may also terminate compilation) are divided
>> between syntax errors and constraint violations (and the #error
>> directive, and possibly some cases of undefined behavior).
[...]
> A compiler writer has a choice of strategies. In the
> case of a syntax error it is usually quite fussy to get
> back into the flow but a constraint violation can be
> reported and compilation resumed. That is my approach -
> syntax violations end compilation but a constraint
> violation causes a report and the end of code generation,
> but code checking continues.
Most compilers make some effort to recover from syntax errors.
For example, after detecting a missing semicolon, a compiler might
in effect insert a semicolon into its internal parse tree so it
can diagnose later errors.
Such efforts have mixed success. C's grammar, I think, can make
recovery particularly difficult compared to some other languages.
As a compiler user, error messages after the first syntax error
may or may not be meaningful.
A particularly clever compiler might use code layout (line breaks
and indentation to help it guess what was meant in the presence of
a syntax error.
--
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web