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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #4783 > unrolled thread

C programming in 2011

Started byDuncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com>
First post2011-05-25 20:27 -0700
Last post2011-05-26 18:02 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 150 — 40 participants

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

Contents

  C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:27 -0700
    Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 22:33 -0500
    Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:58 -0700
      Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 21:06 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 23:24 -0500
    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 07:51 +0000
      Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:15 +0100
        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 06:53 -0400
          Re: C programming in 2011 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:12 +1200
        Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 00:39 +0100
          Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:38 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-01 22:34 +0100
              Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 21:42 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-02 00:33 +0100
      Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 03:41 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-28 00:46 +0000
      Re: C programming in 2011 Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:09 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 15:07 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-27 07:42 +0000
        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-27 07:30 -0400
      Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 01:15 +0300
        Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 22:24 +0000
          Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 16:08 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 23:47 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-28 16:58 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:49 -0700
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-29 11:13 +0000
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Jorge <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> - 2011-06-04 08:05 -0700
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-04 16:20 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 14:35 +0100
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:49 -0700
                      OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 16:13 -0500
                        Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-05-30 12:17 -0400
                          Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 12:52 -0500
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 23:58 +0100
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-30 14:42 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-30 17:40 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2011-05-30 22:38 +0200
                      Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-30 00:38 +0100
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:14 +0300
                Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-29 06:55 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:47 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 15:02 +0300
          Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:01 +0300
            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-30 08:51 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-31 01:54 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 12:00 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 16:44 +0000
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:43 -0700
    Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:13 +0100
    Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:04 +0200
      Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:21 +0200
        Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 17:23 +0200
          Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 19:15 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:29 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:10 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-26 17:35 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:53 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-26 11:13 -0700
                  Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 21:57 -0400
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:13 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:06 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 17:57 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 11:31 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 20:43 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 14:53 -0700
          Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:03 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 01:59 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 02:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 06:36 -0400
                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 05:57 -0700
                    Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 09:23 -0400
                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 07:50 -0700
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:41 -0700
                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 01:46 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-01 10:07 +0000
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 04:12 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 07:46 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-01 17:53 +0000
                                Re: C programming in 2011 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-06-01 16:28 -0400
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:28 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 21:24 -0600
                            Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 10:04 -0400
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 08:21 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:37 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:55 -0400
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:52 -0700
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:00 +0100
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:19 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:53 -0400
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:55 -0700
                              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:41 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:12 +0200
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:28 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:38 -0700
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 01:00 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 09:13 +0000
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 02:52 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 11:41 +0000
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 05:53 -0700
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 06:49 -0700
                                          Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 14:18 +0000
                                          Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-02 21:02 +0000
                                            Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 23:55 -0700
                                              Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 08:37 +0000
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-03 06:49 -0400
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 11:52 +0000
                                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 11:11 -0700
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 18:23 +0000
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-03 18:59 +0000
                                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 19:48 +0000
                                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:02 -0700
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 12:19 -0700
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 13:40 -0700
                                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:11 -0700
                                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:24 -0700
                                                        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:34 -0700
                                                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 17:10 -0700
                                                            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 17:34 -0700
                                                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-04 09:47 -0400
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 10:02 -0400
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-02 12:17 +0000
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 08:48 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 10:35 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.jpem8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 23:32 -0500
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 00:12 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.5k8u2@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 05:18 -0500
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 08:16 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 18:06 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.zourz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 21:25 -0500
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 01:14 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.donaz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 04:36 -0500
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 09:02 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.k6ruq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 18:36 -0500
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 10:14 -0700
                        Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-31 19:56 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 14:54 +0200
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 13:07 +0000
                            Re: C programming in 2011 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-01 14:10 -0400
                              Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 19:58 -0400
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:07 +0000
                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 09:29 -0400
                        Re: C programming in 2011 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-06-07 02:18 -0400
                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 09:31 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-06-09 14:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-01 02:35 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 21:57 +0200
              Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 22:03 +0200
    Re: C programming in 2011 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 12:27 -0400
    Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:02 +0100

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#5275

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-02 06:49 -0700
Message-ID<d8dbcda0-d601-45cb-9c8b-f1066098516c@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5270
On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
> ) On Jun 2, 1:41?pm, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
> )> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> )>
> )> ) On Jun 2, 11:13?am, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
> )> )> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> )> )>
> )> )> ) I have, since it's the only plausible way to implement them, simply
> )> )> ) because the simplest definition of a relative jump is
> )> )> )
> )> )> ) PC <-- PC+offset
> )> )>
> )> )> And how does that involve unsigned integers specifically ?
> )> )
> )> ) PC is an unsigned integer, for all intents and purposes.
> )>
> )> Begging the question: You're assuming the existence of unsigned integers
> )> to prove the existence of unsigned integers.
> )
> ) Are you claiming unsigned integers don't exist?
>
> Straw-man argument.  That's two logical fallacies in as many posts.
> Apparently, you don't care about being right, you only care about winning.

Asking a question is not making an argument, so if you're interested
in playing games with logical fallacies, be careful not to use one
yourself.

But, since your only object is to play games, any further conversation
is pointless.

Have a nice day.

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

#5279

FromWillem <willem@toad.stack.nl>
Date2011-06-02 14:18 +0000
Message-ID<slrniuf6st.2cqj.willem@toad.stack.nl>
In reply to#5275
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
) Asking a question is not making an argument,

Asking a loaded question *is* making an argument.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#5303

FromSeebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net>
Date2011-06-02 21:02 +0000
Message-ID<slrniufrmn.24j2.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>
In reply to#5275
On 2011-06-02, Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Asking a question is not making an argument,

It certainly can be a rhetorical device, and it looked like one in that
context.

> But, since your only object is to play games, any further conversation
> is pointless.

I saw no evidence of playing games.  The initial evaluation was quite
correct; your argument that program counters require hardware support for
unsigned integers is that you believe program counters to be unsigned
integers.  Nothing prevents a system from having a program counter which
is effectively a signed integer, and using that instead.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#5341

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-02 23:55 -0700
Message-ID<f9c06a9e-e8f4-41b1-bfa8-06e70b7a39e2@k16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5303
On Jun 2, 11:02 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-02, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Asking a question is not making an argument,
>
> It certainly can be a rhetorical device, and it looked like one in that
> context.

It looked to me as if someone was claiming unsigned integers don't
exist, and i wanted to be sure that's what he meant.

> > But, since your only object is to play games, any further conversation
> > is pointless.
>
> I saw no evidence of playing games.

You're responsible for your assessments as i am for mine. If you wanna
play with Willem, go ahead, but I decide who gets what answer from me,
not you.

> The initial evaluation was quite
> correct; your argument that program counters require hardware support for
> unsigned integers is that you believe program counters to be unsigned
> integers.  Nothing prevents a system from having a program counter which
> is effectively a signed integer, and using that instead.

Nope, it's possible, as i've stated at least 4 or 5 times already, but
as explained elsethread several times (obviously, everyone wants it
explained personally and nobody reads any post except his own), it
just ain't practical.

So if you want to imagine all kinds of weird and wonderful hardware,
having all kinds of strange restraints and a fairytale design, feel
free, but remember they exist in your imagination only and they are
not as interesting (let alone useful) as you may think.

If you claim otherwise, bring an example.

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

#5342

FromAngel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date2011-06-03 08:37 +0000
Message-ID<slrniuh79k.37q.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to#5341
On 2011-06-03, Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:02?pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
>>?The initial evaluation was quite
>> correct; your argument that program counters require hardware support for
>> unsigned integers is that you believe program counters to be unsigned
>> integers. ?Nothing prevents a system from having a program counter which
>> is effectively a signed integer, and using that instead.
>
> Nope, it's possible, as i've stated at least 4 or 5 times already, but
> as explained elsethread several times (obviously, everyone wants it
> explained personally and nobody reads any post except his own), it
> just ain't practical.

"unsigned integer" is a human interpretation, a computer works only with
bits. You're right in claiming that unsigned int is the most practical
way of making the program counter visible to humans, but the mere
existence of a program counter is no proof that the implementation
supports unsigned integer calculations. Jumps and branches are implemented
in the hardware wiring, not in some arithmetic unit.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#5346

FromJames Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date2011-06-03 06:49 -0400
Message-ID<isae8i$ppm$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#5342
On 06/03/2011 04:37 AM, Angel wrote:
...
> "unsigned integer" is a human interpretation, a computer works only with
> bits. You're right in claiming that unsigned int is the most practical
> way of making the program counter visible to humans, but the mere
> existence of a program counter is no proof that the implementation
> supports unsigned integer calculations. Jumps and branches are implemented
> in the hardware wiring, not in some arithmetic unit.

The interpretation need not be completely arbitrary. Let's assume, for
the sake of keeping the numbers small, a machine with 32-bit addresses.
Interpreting the addresses as unsigned integers implies that the piece
of memory with an address whose address is 0x7FFFFFFF is "close", in
some sense, to the one whose address is 0x80000000. Interpreting them
with signed integers implies that the memory with an address of -1 is
"close" to the memory with an address of 0. In what sense are they
"close"? That varies from platform to platform, and there doesn't have
to be any meaningful concept of some memory addresses being closer
together than others. However, one way of measuring closeness would be
in terms of how many times you must either decrement or increment an one
address, in order to reach the other address. Keith suggested one
possibility, trapping on overflow, which would make the minimum and
maximum addresses very far apart by this measure. If address arithmetic
traps on overflow, it makes a big difference whether it overflows when
the bit pattern is 0x7FFFFFFF (signed), or 0xFFFFFFFF (unsigned).

If addresses are interpreted as signed integers with 1's complement or
sign-magnitude representations, the consequences are even stronger. The
bit pattern which would represent a negative zero must either be an
invalid address, or a second way of representing the same location in
memory as the bit pattern representing a positive zero.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#5353

FromAngel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date2011-06-03 11:52 +0000
Message-ID<slrniuhio3.3va.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to#5346
On 2011-06-03, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 04:37 AM, Angel wrote:
> ...
>> "unsigned integer" is a human interpretation, a computer works only with
>> bits. You're right in claiming that unsigned int is the most practical
>> way of making the program counter visible to humans, but the mere
>> existence of a program counter is no proof that the implementation
>> supports unsigned integer calculations. Jumps and branches are implemented
>> in the hardware wiring, not in some arithmetic unit.
>
> The interpretation need not be completely arbitrary. Let's assume, for
> the sake of keeping the numbers small, a machine with 32-bit addresses.
> Interpreting the addresses as unsigned integers implies that the piece
> of memory with an address whose address is 0x7FFFFFFF is "close", in
> some sense, to the one whose address is 0x80000000. Interpreting them
> with signed integers implies that the memory with an address of -1 is
> "close" to the memory with an address of 0. In what sense are they
> "close"? That varies from platform to platform, and there doesn't have
> to be any meaningful concept of some memory addresses being closer
> together than others. However, one way of measuring closeness would be
> in terms of how many times you must either decrement or increment an one
> address, in order to reach the other address. Keith suggested one
> possibility, trapping on overflow, which would make the minimum and
> maximum addresses very far apart by this measure. If address arithmetic
> traps on overflow, it makes a big difference whether it overflows when
> the bit pattern is 0x7FFFFFFF (signed), or 0xFFFFFFFF (unsigned).
>
> If addresses are interpreted as signed integers with 1's complement or
> sign-magnitude representations, the consequences are even stronger. The
> bit pattern which would represent a negative zero must either be an
> invalid address, or a second way of representing the same location in
> memory as the bit pattern representing a positive zero.

Good points, I admit. And I guess this confusion that a signed
representation would bring is another reason why interpreting addresses
as unsigned integers makes much more sense to us poor humans. :-)

It's been a long time since I did any assembler programming, but my
understanding was always that relative jumps aren't calculated as such
but hard-wired into the chip. The CPU just counts x steps ahead or back
in binary, regardless of how this binary stuff is later interpreted by
us silly (hexa)decimal-minded humans.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#5370

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-03 11:11 -0700
Message-ID<8fd4e3e3-7b81-424d-bdb2-331077313e8b@h7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5341
On Jun 3, 6:57 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-03, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > It looked to me as if someone was claiming unsigned integers don't
> > exist, and i wanted to be sure that's what he meant.
>
> Not claiming they don't exist, just pointing out that your argument that
> hardware had to have unsigned integers was to take something hardware
> does, and assume that it was unsigned integers.
>
> > Nope, it's possible, as i've stated at least 4 or 5 times already, but
> > as explained elsethread several times (obviously, everyone wants it
> > explained personally and nobody reads any post except his own), it
> > just ain't practical.
>
> So you keep saying, but frankly, your explanations have been pretty
> much illucid, so far as I can tell.

Ok. They were pretty ad hoc, and i'f i had prepared a presentation, i
would certainly have put it differently. But then again, this is
usenet
and i give as much charity as i receive.

What practical use do you see for viewing addresses as signed? If i'm
illucid, then please enlighten me.

> You're insulting, you don't use the principle of charity when debating,
> you don't appear to understand the role of hypotheticals in planning for
> unexpected future happenings, and generally you don't make much sense.

I understand the role of hypotheticals in planning, but then again,
it's
not much use if those hypotheticals are highly implausible.

Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
easy if i were illucid, i would think.

> *plonk*

Bye.

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

#5371

FromAngel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date2011-06-03 18:23 +0000
Message-ID<slrniui9lr.4ef.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to#5370
On 2011-06-03, Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
> easy if i were illucid, i would think.

Actually, showing an illucid person that he is wrong is pretty much
impossible, and discussion with such a person is pointless.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#5374

FromSeebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net>
Date2011-06-03 18:59 +0000
Message-ID<slrniuia63.f7r.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>
In reply to#5371
On 2011-06-03, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-03, Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
>> easy if i were illucid, i would think.

> Actually, showing an illucid person that he is wrong is pretty much
> impossible, and discussion with such a person is pointless.

Yes, that's rather the central point.  At some point, we're down to
arguing with the guy who can prove that pi is exactly 3.125 because you
have to measure it using a circle inscribed in a square exactly 4 units
across*.

-s
[*] Actual example, but probably misremembered.
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#5380

FromAngel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date2011-06-03 19:48 +0000
Message-ID<slrniuiekl.4ok.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to#5374
On 2011-06-03, Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-03, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On 2011-06-03, Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
>>> easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>
>> Actually, showing an illucid person that he is wrong is pretty much
>> impossible, and discussion with such a person is pointless.
>
> Yes, that's rather the central point.  At some point, we're down to
> arguing with the guy who can prove that pi is exactly 3.125 because you
> have to measure it using a circle inscribed in a square exactly 4 units
> across*.

There have been several mathematical cranks who have made false claims
about pi, some of the stories are on Wikipedia. If I recall right, there
was even once a lawsuit started where the claim was that pi == 3,
because the bible says so.

Others have claimed that pi is a rational number (it's not, the decimals
are infinite and non-repeating) or that it can be constructed with compass
and straightedge (it can't).


But I guess I'm digressing off-topic here. :-)


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#5386

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-03 15:02 -0700
Message-ID<a06e527d-7a9d-439d-9c5e-10f214721635@x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5380
On Jun 3, 9:48 pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:

<snip>

> "C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
> C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
> - seen in comp.lang.c

<snigger> Hey! That's _my_ quote! :)

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

#5377

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2011-06-03 12:19 -0700
Message-ID<ln39jqk9ii.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to#5370
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> writes:
[...]
> Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
> easy if i were illucid, i would think.

Proving you wrong about what?  That would require you making a
specific claim with which we disagree.

You've claimed that there are no existing systems that do not support
unsigned integer arithmetic.  You're very likely right about that.

You've claimed that it's inconvenient to view addresses as signed
integers, and more convenient to view them as unsigned integers.
Again, I believe that's correct in most cases; I can't really
comment on whether it's correct in all cases.

You respond to statements that UINT_MAX==INT_MAX is possible with
claims that it's not true on any real systems.  This does not refute
the original statement.

You've expressed a lack of interest in hypothetical systems.
That's not a falsifiable claim.

If you have a specific claim that you think we'd disagree with,
by all means state it and we can discuss it.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5382

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-03 13:40 -0700
Message-ID<170657d3-6d92-43a9-b0ea-e2b903c1a7c6@y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5377
On Jun 3, 9:19 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
> [...]
>
> > Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
> > easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>
> Proving you wrong about what?  That would require you making a
> specific claim with which we disagree.

Sigh... I repeated a very specific claim concerning "UINT_MAX ==
INTMAX"
quite a few times now, wht which you and others heartily disagreed. So
the above, frankly, is nonsense.

> You've claimed that there are no existing systems that do not support
> unsigned integer arithmetic.  You're very likely right about that.

And that was another claim i made in the course of the discussion,
only
to counter an argument about a hypothetical machine i thought was
_very_
implausible.

> You've claimed that it's inconvenient to view addresses as signed
> integers, and more convenient to view them as unsigned integers.
> Again, I believe that's correct in most cases; I can't really
> comment on whether it's correct in all cases.

I can't imagine any situation where such an arrangement would be an
advantage.

> You respond to statements that UINT_MAX==INT_MAX is possible with
> claims that it's not true on any real systems.  This does not refute
> the original statement.

It is possible, but for reasons i've explained quite a few times, it's
highly improbable that you'll ever run into a system where it's
actually valid.

> You've expressed a lack of interest in hypothetical systems.

Yes. Because anyone in this newsgroup is able to produce a dozen
hypothetical machines a day that no sane CPU-manufacturer would ever
produce. As an encore, it serves as a confirmation of the claim that
the now infamous condition is only valid hypothetically if almost all
attempts to show the opposite involve hypothetical processors and the
one exception (the Burroughs machine, and kudos for finding it) never
supported C in the first place.

> That's not a falsifiable claim.

The statement that UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is only valid hypothetically is
easily falsifiable by bringing a single counterexample of a system in
use where it's valid. But then again, this is not a scientific thesis
under the watchful eyes of Karl Popper, but an informal discussion on
a public forum.

> If you have a specific claim that you think we'd disagree with,
> by all means state it and we can discuss it.

I've done that already, and you've summed them up quite nicely, above.
Besides, i started out woith a question:

<quote>
I've been scratching my head for a bit, reading the above. In any
numbersystem i can come up with it seems that UINT_MAX > INT_MAX, if
only because of the sign bit required in integers.

So please, which situation did you have in mind where UINT_MAX ==
INT_MAX?
</quote>

And i feel it has been thoroughly answered: none that anyone can think
of except hypothetical machines and a museum exhibit.

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

#5387

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2011-06-03 15:11 -0700
Message-ID<lny61iin08.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to#5382
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Jun 3, 9:19 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>> > Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
>> > easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>>
>> Proving you wrong about what?  That would require you making a
>> specific claim with which we disagree.
>
> Sigh... I repeated a very specific claim concerning "UINT_MAX ==
> INTMAX" quite a few times now, wht which you and others heartily
> disagreed. So the above, frankly, is nonsense.

Can you please humor me and re-state this "very specific claim"?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5391

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-03 15:24 -0700
Message-ID<60666b3f-04d5-405c-932d-4b7a082e7c1e@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5387
On Jun 4, 12:11 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> > On Jun 3, 9:19 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
> >> [...]
>
> >> > Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
> >> > easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>
> >> Proving you wrong about what?  That would require you making a
> >> specific claim with which we disagree.
>
> > Sigh... I repeated a very specific claim concerning "UINT_MAX ==
> > INTMAX" quite a few times now, wht which you and others heartily
> > disagreed. So the above, frankly, is nonsense.
>
> Can you please humor me and re-state this "very specific claim"?
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
> Nokia
> "We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
>     -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Copied from the part you snipped:

"UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is only valid hypothetically",

or more formally correct:

"The boolean expression UINT_MAX == INT_MAX only evaluates as 'true'
in hypothetical cases"*).

*) Barring any tomfoolery by the programmer, of course. If you're
hellbent on making it evaluate as 'true', you probably can.

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

#5394

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2011-06-03 15:34 -0700
Message-ID<lnpqmuily6.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to#5391
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Jun 4, 12:11 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 9:19 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
>> >> > easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>>
>> >> Proving you wrong about what?  That would require you making a
>> >> specific claim with which we disagree.
>>
>> > Sigh... I repeated a very specific claim concerning "UINT_MAX ==
>> > INTMAX" quite a few times now, wht which you and others heartily
>> > disagreed. So the above, frankly, is nonsense.
>>
>> Can you please humor me and re-state this "very specific claim"?
>
> Copied from the part you snipped:
>
> "UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is only valid hypothetically",
>
> or more formally correct:
>
> "The boolean expression UINT_MAX == INT_MAX only evaluates as 'true'
> in hypothetical cases"*).
>
> *) Barring any tomfoolery by the programmer, of course. If you're
> hellbent on making it evaluate as 'true', you probably can.

The initial version was fine; I don't think the "more formally correct"
version adds anything.

(A minor quibble, though: "true" would have been clearer than "valid".
UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is a perfectly valid expression, which evaluates to
0 (false) on all implementations I'm aware of.)

Can you cite the article in which someone disagreed with that claim?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5400

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-03 17:10 -0700
Message-ID<4607e414-30ea-4315-b754-f65660f1b1d7@h7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5394
On Jun 4, 12:34 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 12:11 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> >> > On Jun 3, 9:19 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> >> >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> > Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
> >> >> > easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>
> >> >> Proving you wrong about what?  That would require you making a
> >> >> specific claim with which we disagree.
>
> >> > Sigh... I repeated a very specific claim concerning "UINT_MAX ==
> >> > INTMAX" quite a few times now, wht which you and others heartily
> >> > disagreed. So the above, frankly, is nonsense.
>
> >> Can you please humor me and re-state this "very specific claim"?
>
> > Copied from the part you snipped:
>
> > "UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is only valid hypothetically",
>
> > or more formally correct:
>
> > "The boolean expression UINT_MAX == INT_MAX only evaluates as 'true'
> > in hypothetical cases"*).
>
> > *) Barring any tomfoolery by the programmer, of course. If you're
> > hellbent on making it evaluate as 'true', you probably can.
>
> The initial version was fine; I don't think the "more formally correct"
> version adds anything.
>
> (A minor quibble, though: "true" would have been clearer than "valid".
> UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is a perfectly valid expression, which evaluates to
> 0 (false) on all implementations I'm aware of.)
>
> Can you cite the article in which someone disagreed with that claim?

Google is your friend...

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

#5404

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2011-06-03 17:34 -0700
Message-ID<lnd3iuigdn.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to#5400
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Jun 4, 12:34 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> > On Jun 4, 12:11 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 3, 9:19 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> >> >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> > Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
>> >> >> > easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>>
>> >> >> Proving you wrong about what?  That would require you making a
>> >> >> specific claim with which we disagree.
>>
>> >> > Sigh... I repeated a very specific claim concerning "UINT_MAX ==
>> >> > INTMAX" quite a few times now, wht which you and others heartily
>> >> > disagreed. So the above, frankly, is nonsense.
>>
>> >> Can you please humor me and re-state this "very specific claim"?
>>
>> > Copied from the part you snipped:
>>
>> > "UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is only valid hypothetically",
>>
>> > or more formally correct:
>>
>> > "The boolean expression UINT_MAX == INT_MAX only evaluates as 'true'
>> > in hypothetical cases"*).
>>
>> > *) Barring any tomfoolery by the programmer, of course. If you're
>> > hellbent on making it evaluate as 'true', you probably can.
>>
>> The initial version was fine; I don't think the "more formally correct"
>> version adds anything.
>>
>> (A minor quibble, though: "true" would have been clearer than "valid".
>> UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is a perfectly valid expression, which evaluates to
>> 0 (false) on all implementations I'm aware of.)
>>
>> Can you cite the article in which someone disagreed with that claim?
>
> Google is your friend...

Not in this case.

I don't believe that anyone has actually disagreed with your claim.
If I do a Google search for such a disagreement (using what search
terms?), it's likely that I won't find anything that *I* consider to
be disagreeing with it.  My failure to find it would prove nothing.

I could re-read this entire thread, but I've already read it and
not found what you say is there.

Can you cite an article in which *you think* someone disagreed with
your claim that "UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is only valid hypothetically"
(not counting my quibble above about "valid" vs. "true")?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5426

FromJames Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date2011-06-04 09:47 -0400
Message-ID<isdd1a$5mv$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#5391
On 06/03/2011 06:24 PM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:11�am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 9:19�pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>>>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Illucid or not, so far nobody has shown me to be wrong, which would be
>>>>> easy if i were illucid, i would think.
>>
>>>> Proving you wrong about what? �That would require you making a
>>>> specific claim with which we disagree.
>>
>>> Sigh... I repeated a very specific claim concerning "UINT_MAX ==
>>> INTMAX" quite a few times now, wht which you and others heartily
>>> disagreed. So the above, frankly, is nonsense.
>>
>> Can you please humor me and re-state this "very specific claim"?
...
> "UINT_MAX == INT_MAX is only valid hypothetically",

I've never disputed the truth of that claim, and I don't recall that
anyone else has, either.  I've only disputed it's importance. The fact
that UNIT_MAX >= INT_MAX is guaranteed by the standard makes it an
important constraint to be aware of. The unproven hypothesis that all
real implementations obey UINT_MAX > INT_MAX, even if it happens to be
true, is completely uninteresting to me.

I don't know how you can be justifiably certain about that claim, (being
unjustifiably certain of it is easy) because in principle certainty
would require that you be familiar with every single implementation of C
currently in existence; but I agree that the failure of anyone to
provide a counter example is supporting evidence for such a claim.

Can you provide a citation of anyone disputing the truth of that claim?
-- 
James Kuyper

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

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web