Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #140381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-29 10:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-02-19 18:19 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 380 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
"...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 10:50 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-01-29 20:30 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:47 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-29 16:36 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 18:48 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-01-30 05:48 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-30 14:06 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-01-30 15:07 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-01-30 06:42 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-01-30 17:12 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-01-30 14:42 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-30 11:19 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-29 11:57 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:32 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-29 16:24 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-29 12:13 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-01-29 12:20 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 15:08 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-01-29 21:38 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 19:01 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-30 11:27 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-01-30 04:18 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-30 11:00 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 14:18 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-30 14:34 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-30 23:12 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-31 15:44 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-30 19:00 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-01-31 14:32 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-31 09:44 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-01-31 23:15 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:11 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:12 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-29 22:46 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:57 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-29 16:27 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-01-29 16:48 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-29 16:13 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-01-30 16:57 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-01-30 18:04 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-30 17:35 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-01-30 19:23 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-01-31 03:25 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-01-31 08:53 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-01-31 14:35 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 12:52 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:19 +0300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-31 09:55 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-31 19:53 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-02-01 13:24 +0300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-01 12:15 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:08 +0300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-04 11:14 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 03:40 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:24 +0300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-04 12:03 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-04 22:34 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ike Naar <ike@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2019-02-04 22:00 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-04 21:32 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-04 12:32 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-04 22:06 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-04 23:30 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 13:27 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 14:36 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 16:50 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 18:44 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 08:23 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 12:43 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 09:51 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-05 13:14 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 01:42 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 22:44 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 02:36 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-06 17:39 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-06 10:39 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-07 07:58 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 22:45 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 08:44 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-26 08:03 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 15:29 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-07 07:59 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 12:07 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 03:42 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 13:36 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 04:44 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-06 05:40 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 05:50 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-06 06:03 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 06:22 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 15:54 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-07 10:40 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 05:56 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 16:04 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-07 00:26 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 09:39 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-07 10:57 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-07 19:55 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 23:27 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-07 16:35 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-08 02:02 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 16:10 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 02:37 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 14:06 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-07 12:01 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-07 21:55 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-07 23:17 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-07 16:36 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-08 02:04 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 01:39 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-08 11:42 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 03:07 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 03:10 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-08 13:43 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 06:47 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-08 17:56 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-08 10:27 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 05:01 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-10 16:51 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 09:14 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-11 02:34 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-11 09:54 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-11 12:35 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-11 14:03 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-11 14:53 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 16:36 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 02:57 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 22:24 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 14:25 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-03-06 08:50 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 01:48 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-11 13:53 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-11 08:01 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-11 17:01 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 11:30 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-12 01:40 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 01:51 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-12 12:13 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 03:39 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-12 16:27 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 07:57 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 09:50 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-12 21:13 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-02-12 21:52 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 01:30 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 11:52 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 03:29 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 13:26 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-13 11:41 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-13 05:26 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 05:32 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 14:34 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-12 16:09 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 08:42 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-13 04:40 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 02:05 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-13 02:55 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 03:32 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 03:36 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 13:32 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 06:30 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 16:10 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 07:21 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 16:38 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-13 11:57 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-13 21:27 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 00:55 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-14 02:41 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 03:14 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-14 15:12 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 07:28 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-15 01:06 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:43 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-02-25 02:26 -0800
Wow... (Was: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-02-25 12:12 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-13 15:46 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 08:15 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 18:07 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-11 13:43 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-10 12:43 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 13:14 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-10 13:59 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-10 17:50 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 15:17 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-02-25 17:38 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 21:40 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 01:37 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-02-11 20:24 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-07 10:41 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 14:47 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-06 07:51 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-06 05:12 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 05:22 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-06 05:51 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-07 10:33 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 21:24 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 00:24 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 14:13 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 08:56 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 23:59 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 00:15 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 08:25 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 11:51 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 14:41 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 14:17 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 06:37 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 16:10 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-04 14:48 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-04 22:09 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 10:19 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:05 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-12 12:10 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-13 08:47 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-12 12:41 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-12 20:55 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-13 10:07 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-12 21:53 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-13 11:01 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-16 15:09 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-16 16:33 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-16 16:51 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-16 16:52 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-16 18:20 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-16 20:00 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-17 08:54 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-16 23:23 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-17 12:31 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-17 00:34 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-17 14:26 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-17 01:45 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-17 20:12 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-17 11:23 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-12 23:00 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-12 14:12 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-12 22:44 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-12 23:32 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-13 12:51 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-13 01:13 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-14 07:39 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-13 19:54 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:30 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 13:17 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 15:19 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 14:45 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 16:10 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 16:38 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 20:24 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-14 07:17 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 20:28 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-14 12:05 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 01:48 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-02-14 06:29 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-14 14:19 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-02-15 01:33 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2019-02-18 19:33 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-18 18:53 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-18 19:05 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-18 20:11 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-18 19:25 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-18 21:39 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-14 19:22 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-02-15 02:14 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-15 09:27 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 10:02 +0100
Just an end-user... (Was: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is) reached" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-02-13 09:13 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-13 11:32 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 13:37 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-13 14:21 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 16:32 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-13 15:18 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-13 16:36 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-13 23:09 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 01:51 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-14 02:35 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 10:00 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 12:26 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 15:22 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 15:02 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 16:23 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 17:03 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 20:41 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 21:23 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-15 10:38 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 22:53 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-02-14 08:19 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-14 20:45 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-02-15 02:32 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-15 11:51 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-14 16:47 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 17:18 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-14 17:48 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 19:26 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-14 20:21 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-14 21:20 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-14 22:24 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-15 00:18 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-15 01:29 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-15 08:14 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-15 07:03 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 04:42 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-02-15 05:26 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-15 16:37 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 14:24 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-15 14:07 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-15 07:02 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-15 17:06 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-15 08:10 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 21:45 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 14:16 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 15:04 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 15:26 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-26 12:06 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 21:05 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-26 13:55 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-27 06:41 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-27 12:33 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-27 08:18 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-27 14:02 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-26 21:18 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-27 02:41 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 19:13 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-26 22:29 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-27 09:33 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-27 07:41 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-27 14:15 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-27 07:02 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-27 17:18 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-28 15:05 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-03-07 11:24 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-03-21 11:13 +0000
Re: Readability (was: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached") Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-03-21 23:25 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-03-24 03:01 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 16:03 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-26 17:38 +1300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-04 21:31 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-01 02:38 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 01:57 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-02-01 13:26 +0300
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-01 07:18 -0500
The look of C (Was: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is) reached" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-02-01 14:26 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-01 14:32 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-01 06:54 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-01 16:42 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:56 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-01 18:09 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:31 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:58 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-01 12:47 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-02 16:18 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-01 21:52 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-01 23:52 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-02 01:00 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-01 16:41 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-02 02:00 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-01 15:10 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-01 14:36 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-01 07:05 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-02-25 22:30 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-02-26 12:37 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-03-06 09:09 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-26 05:50 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-03-06 09:06 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-03-06 10:48 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-03-23 10:27 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-03-25 12:14 -0700
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:43 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-01-31 03:46 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-01-30 22:49 -0500
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-30 20:08 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 09:11 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 10:23 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-19 22:55 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-19 15:48 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-20 00:10 +0000
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-19 16:42 -0800
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-20 13:05 +0100
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-20 10:30 -0600
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-19 16:05 -0600
Re: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-19 18:19 -0600
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 16:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q41c11$6cs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140931 |
On 13/02/2019 15:30, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 12:32:11 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> OK, let's go for the next step - will you acknowledge that no one else >> uses the term "grammar" in the sense you describe here? Clearly no one >> in this thread agrees with you, except in the vaguest of terms (such as >> noting that in the context of natural language, the word "grammar" has >> sometimes been used to include some semantics). Please find a clear and >> reputable reference and web link that demonstrate that other people use >> the word "grammar" to mean the "rules of a programming language" or >> "rules that distinguish meaning from non-meaning in a programming >> language". It would be too much to ask you to find such reference in >> the context of C programming - so start with something for any >> established programming language. >> >> Failing that, please admit and accept that when /you/ use the word >> "grammar", you mean something different from everyone else - and >> therefore your use is meaningless. > > Here we go: > > https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-programming-language-Grammar-and-programming-language-Syntax > > > "You can consider syntax as the sentence structure which obeys the laws of the grammar. For e.g.: Ordering of words in a sentence has more to do with syntax. > First, that link could hardly be called "reputable" - it's just some guy offering an answer on the internet. Compared to people whom we know here to be C experts, it counts quite low. And secondly, it describes /syntax/, not /grammar/, as "what gives meaning to your code". This is contrary to the C standards where "syntax" is part of the "grammar", and contrary to your own claims that grammar determines meaning. > A grammar is a much bigger concept. It is the set of all rules which a program needs to obey. > > You can also visualize syntax as a subset of a language grammar. > In the C standards, "grammar" consists of two parts - "lexical grammar" saying how different characters combine to make different lexical tokens (what character combinations give an integer constant, an identifier, etc.), and a "phrase structure grammar" which says how these can be combined. That part is the "syntax" of C. So yes, syntax is a subset of grammar. Yes, grammar is bigger than syntax. Yes, a program has to obey the grammar of the language being used. No, that does not mean that grammar covers "everything", or that being "grammatical" is sufficient for a program to have meaning, be fully defined, and function correctly. > For more details, I won't duplicate content. You can always read this QA > What's the difference between syntax and grammar?" > > > Now it's almost always the case on Usenet that when a challenge is made, > and is met, the challenger finds some reason to claim it hasn't been > met. Why not be an exception? > Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 07:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59d99fab-ec13-4a0c-8314-e019c1c7f98e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #140935 |
On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote:
>
> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar",
> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random
> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive)
> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you.
https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/
A grammar can be used to define two opposite things:
how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written in the formal language
the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 16:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q41dm5$fei$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140938 |
On 13/02/2019 16:21, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. > > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ > > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: > > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written in the formal language > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language > These are not opposite things - they are the same thing, from opposite viewpoints. And neither of them agrees with your idea of grammar - they both agree with the standard view of programming language grammar. I passed you down a ladder - you are using it as a spade to dig your hole even deeper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 11:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln7ee3sbqq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #140938 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar",
>> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random
>> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive)
>> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you.
>
> https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/
>
> A grammar can be used to define two opposite things:
>
> how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written in the formal language
> the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language
That web page describes using EBNF to define a grammar. It does not
support your claim. At all. The word "valid" in the excerpt you quoted
refers to *syntactic* validity, in the sense defined in ISO C Annex A.
I'm pleased that you've finally acknowledged what the rest of us mean by
"grammar". I'm still frustrated that you continue to insist on your own
meaning, and I don't expect that to change.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87va1nidkp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #140938 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. > > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you linking to it? > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: > > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written > in the formal language > > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar. The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and generating strings in the language of the grammar. If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as those with the correct syntax. Your quoting this page worries me. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 00:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21dbf236-b562-4918-b474-09e96500ca2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #140968 |
On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 21:27:47 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: > >> > >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", > >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random > >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) > >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. > > > > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ > > That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you > linking to it? > > > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: > > > > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written > > in the formal language > > > > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language > > You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar. > The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and > generating strings in the language of the grammar. > > If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an > example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as > those with the correct syntax. > > Your quoting this page worries me. > He defines grammar broadly, using a definition compatible with mine. He then goes on to talk about restricted grammars that don't actually achieve the goals he has set out. That's inevitable in a technical programming paper. The challenge was to find a source adopting the definition, not someone who doesn't talk about Backus Naur grammars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 02:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnva1mr6sd.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #140977 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 21:27:47 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote:
>> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar",
>> >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random
>> >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive)
>> >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you.
>> >
>> > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/
>>
>> That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you
>> linking to it?
>>
>> > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things:
>> >
>> > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written
>> > in the formal language
>> >
>> > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language
>>
>> You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar.
>> The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and
>> generating strings in the language of the grammar.
>>
>> If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an
>> example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as
>> those with the correct syntax.
>>
>> Your quoting this page worries me.
>>
> He defines grammar broadly, using a definition compatible with mine.
> He then goes on to talk about restricted grammars that don't actually
> achieve the goals he has set out. That's inevitable in a technical
> programming paper.
No, he doesn't. The author uses the word "grammar" *only* in the
sense that can be defined by EBNF and by Annex A of the C standard
(which I think uses BNF, not EBNF).
I guess that you misunderstood his statement that an EBNF grammar
can be (but rarely is) used to generate valid documents in the
specified language. The article is titled "EBNF: How to Describe the
Grammar of a Language", and the content of the article is entirely
consistent with that title.
> The challenge was to find a source adopting the definition, not
> someone who doesn't talk about Backus Naur grammars.
And you've failed that challenge.
Of course you'll never admit that. I mention this mostly so that
others don't misunderstand that web page.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 03:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <158bba8c-6aed-4faa-bc74-da481cbf898f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #140989 |
On Thursday, 14 February 2019 10:41:46 UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 21:27:47 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: > >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", > >> >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random > >> >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) > >> >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. > >> > > >> > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ > >> > >> That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you > >> linking to it? > >> > >> > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: > >> > > >> > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written > >> > in the formal language > >> > > >> > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language > >> > >> You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar. > >> The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and > >> generating strings in the language of the grammar. > >> > >> If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an > >> example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as > >> those with the correct syntax. > >> > >> Your quoting this page worries me. > >> > > He defines grammar broadly, using a definition compatible with mine. > > He then goes on to talk about restricted grammars that don't actually > > achieve the goals he has set out. That's inevitable in a technical > > programming paper. > > No, he doesn't. The author uses the word "grammar" *only* in the > sense that can be defined by EBNF and by Annex A of the C standard > (which I think uses BNF, not EBNF). > > I guess that you misunderstood his statement that an EBNF grammar > can be (but rarely is) used to generate valid documents in the > specified language. The article is titled "EBNF: How to Describe the > Grammar of a Language", and the content of the article is entirely > consistent with that title. > > > The challenge was to find a source adopting the definition, not > > someone who doesn't talk about Backus Naur grammars. > > And you've failed that challenge. > > Of course you'll never admit that. I mention this mostly so that > others don't misunderstand that web page. > He's defining what the word "grammar" means, then he goes on to talk about a specific sub-set of grammars. The question becomes, "what does he mean by formal language?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87wom2h09d.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #140977 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 21:27:47 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", >> >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random >> >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) >> >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. >> > >> > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ >> >> That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you >> linking to it? >> >> > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: >> > >> > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written >> > in the formal language >> > >> > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language >> >> You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar. >> The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and >> generating strings in the language of the grammar. >> >> If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an >> example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as >> those with the correct syntax. >> >> Your quoting this page worries me. >> > He defines grammar broadly, using a definition compatible with mine. No. I can only imagine you are using other Malcolm-specific meanings for the words he writes. Can you quote the part that supports you usage? It's not the text you quoted before. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 07:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8143fedc-4860-4aa4-bf6c-7f324094b30a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141019 |
On Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:12:53 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 21:27:47 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar",
> >> >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random
> >> >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive)
> >> >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you.
> >> >
> >> > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/
> >>
> >> That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you
> >> linking to it?
> >>
> >> > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things:
> >> >
> >> > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written
> >> > in the formal language
> >> >
> >> > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language
> >>
> >> You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar.
> >> The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and
> >> generating strings in the language of the grammar.
> >>
> >> If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an
> >> example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as
> >> those with the correct syntax.
> >>
> >> Your quoting this page worries me.
> >>
> > He defines grammar broadly, using a definition compatible with mine.
>
> No. I can only imagine you are using other Malcolm-specific meanings
> for the words he writes. Can you quote the part that supports you
> usage? It's not the text you quoted before.
>
> --
> Ben.
I'll give you a bit more:
What Is the EBNF?
The EBNF is a way to specify a formal language grammar. It can be considered a metalanguage because it is a language to describe other languages.
A formal language is a language with a precise structure, like programming languages, data languages, or Domain Specific Languages (DSLs). Java, XML, and CSS are all examples of formal languages.
A grammar can be used to define two opposite things:
how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written in the formal language
the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language
For example, a simple grammar could tell us that a document in our language is composed by a list of declarations, and declarations are defined by the sequence of a keyword Xyz and a a name.
So he's talking about the EBNF. But he defines his terms. The says what a
formal language is, then he says what a grammar is. Then he goes on to
talk about the grammar of a simple language. But clearly "grammar" doesn't
just mean "the example simple grammar", or, for that matter, EBNF.
Grammar can be used to define the possible ways to build a valid piece
of code in the formal language. So it includes everything that makes
code "valid".
That's what he says. Of course, from then on, he uses "grammar" as essentially
a synonym for Extended Backus-Naur Form grammars or the grammars that
can be translated into them. That's what the article is about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-15 01:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87imxlg8s6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #141023 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:12:53 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 21:27:47 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", >> >> >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random >> >> >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) >> >> >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. >> >> > >> >> > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ >> >> >> >> That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you >> >> linking to it? >> >> >> >> > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: >> >> > >> >> > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written >> >> > in the formal language >> >> > >> >> > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language >> >> >> >> You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar. >> >> The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and >> >> generating strings in the language of the grammar. >> >> >> >> If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an >> >> example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as >> >> those with the correct syntax. >> >> >> >> Your quoting this page worries me. >> >> >> > He defines grammar broadly, using a definition compatible with mine. >> >> No. I can only imagine you are using other Malcolm-specific meanings >> for the words he writes. Can you quote the part that supports you >> usage? It's not the text you quoted before. >> >> -- >> Ben. > > I'll give you a bit more: I read it all. > What Is the EBNF? > > The EBNF is a way to specify a formal language grammar. It can be > considered a metalanguage because it is a language to describe other > languages. > > A formal language is a language with a precise structure, like > programming languages, data languages, or Domain Specific Languages > (DSLs). Java, XML, and CSS are all examples of formal languages. > > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: > > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written > in the formal language > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language > > For example, a simple grammar could tell us that a document in our > language is composed by a list of declarations, and declarations are > defined by the sequence of a keyword Xyz and a a name. > > So he's talking about the EBNF. But he defines his terms. The says what a > formal language is, then he says what a grammar is. Then he goes on to > talk about the grammar of a simple language. But clearly "grammar" doesn't > just mean "the example simple grammar", or, for that matter, EBNF. Indeed. Let me give you another quote: "we should consider that a grammar defines what is syntactically valid, but it tells us nothing about what is semantically valid" and after a few examples... "We can imagine a language where all these examples are syntactically correct, i.e., they are built according to the grammar of the language. However they are all semantically incorrect, because they do not respect additional constraints on how the language should be used. These semantics constraints are used in addition to the grammar, after the structures of the language have been recognized." Are you still sure he is using your wildly general meaning of the term? > Grammar can be used to define the possible ways to build a valid piece > of code in the formal language. So it includes everything that makes > code "valid". Not in the text in the page you cite. If the author intended your absurdly broad meaning there would have to be something more. He'd have to qualify the quote I gave you in some way "although grammars /can/ define the semantics, the ones we consider here don't". > That's what he says. Of course, from then on, he uses "grammar" as essentially > a synonym for Extended Backus-Naur Form grammars or the grammars that > can be translated into them. That's what the article is about. He is using the term to mean essentially the same thing from start to finish. If not, you are accusing him of bad writing and an unfamiliarity with field. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87va183odz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #141060 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thursday, 14 February 2019 15:12:53 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 21:27:47 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> >> >>> >> > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:10:35 UTC, David Brown wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Show a link of a reputable source agreeing with your idea of "grammar", >>> >> >> and I will be happy. You showed a link with no backing (some random >>> >> >> guys off the internet /might/ be right, but it is hardly persuasive) >>> >> >> that gives different opinions which /disagree/ with you. >>> >> > >>> >> > https://tomassetti.me/ebnf/ >>> >> >>> >> That page uses the very limited meaning that you reject. Why are you >>> >> linking to it? >>> >> >>> >> > A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: >>> >> > >>> >> > how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written >>> >> > in the formal language >>> >> > >>> >> > the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language >>> >> >>> >> You must see that he means the very most limited meaning for grammar. >>> >> The opposites being parsing strings in the language of the grammar and >>> >> generating strings in the language of the grammar. >>> >> >>> >> If it is not immediately clear that he means only syntax, he gives an >>> >> example staring where your quote ends -- it gives valid documents as >>> >> those with the correct syntax. >>> >> >>> >> Your quoting this page worries me. >>> >> >>> > He defines grammar broadly, using a definition compatible with mine. >>> >>> No. I can only imagine you are using other Malcolm-specific meanings >>> for the words he writes. Can you quote the part that supports you >>> usage? It's not the text you quoted before. >>> >>> -- >>> Ben. >> >> I'll give you a bit more: > > I read it all. > >> What Is the EBNF? >> >> The EBNF is a way to specify a formal language grammar. It can be >> considered a metalanguage because it is a language to describe other >> languages. >> >> A formal language is a language with a precise structure, like >> programming languages, data languages, or Domain Specific Languages >> (DSLs). Java, XML, and CSS are all examples of formal languages. >> >> A grammar can be used to define two opposite things: >> >> how to recognize the different portions in a piece of code written >> in the formal language >> the possible ways to build a valid piece of code in the formal language >> >> For example, a simple grammar could tell us that a document in our >> language is composed by a list of declarations, and declarations are >> defined by the sequence of a keyword Xyz and a a name. >> >> So he's talking about the EBNF. But he defines his terms. The says what a >> formal language is, then he says what a grammar is. Then he goes on to >> talk about the grammar of a simple language. But clearly "grammar" doesn't >> just mean "the example simple grammar", or, for that matter, EBNF. > > Indeed. Let me give you another quote: > > "we should consider that a grammar defines what is syntactically > valid, but it tells us nothing about what is semantically valid" > > and after a few examples... > > "We can imagine a language where all these examples are syntactically > correct, i.e., they are built according to the grammar of the > language. However they are all semantically incorrect, because they do > not respect additional constraints on how the language should be > used. These semantics constraints are used in addition to the grammar, > after the structures of the language have been recognized." > > Are you still sure he is using your wildly general meaning of the term? > >> Grammar can be used to define the possible ways to build a valid piece >> of code in the formal language. So it includes everything that makes >> code "valid". > > Not in the text in the page you cite. If the author intended your > absurdly broad meaning there would have to be something more. He'd have > to qualify the quote I gave you in some way "although grammars /can/ > define the semantics, the ones we consider here don't". > >> That's what he says. Of course, from then on, he uses "grammar" as essentially >> a synonym for Extended Backus-Naur Form grammars or the grammars that >> can be translated into them. That's what the article is about. > > He is using the term to mean essentially the same thing from start to > finish. If not, you are accusing him of bad writing and an > unfamiliarity with field. For what it's worth I contacted the author. He confirms that he never intended anything more than the usual syntactic validity when he wrote "valid strings". There was no intended change of meaning from the quotes you give at the beginning to the syntax-only meaning clearly elaborated in quote I gave from later on. I doubt anyone has any appetite for more of this, but this means you have still not cited a CS-related source that uses your meaning of the term. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-24 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c702e6a1-3f03-415f-a5d1-ba8ad6274ee8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141246 |
On Sunday, 24 February 2019 20:47:12 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > For what it's worth I contacted the author. He confirms that he never > intended anything more than the usual syntactic validity when he wrote > "valid strings". There was no intended change of meaning from the > quotes you give at the beginning to the syntax-only meaning clearly > elaborated in quote I gave from later on. > > I doubt anyone has any appetite for more of this, but this means you > have still not cited a CS-related source that uses your meaning of the > term. > OK, so defeated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 02:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8a372b81-131c-40a3-8d7c-3005511ddd10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #141260 |
On Sunday, 24 February 2019 21:43:51 UTC, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 24 February 2019 20:47:12 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > > For what it's worth I contacted the author. He confirms that he never > > intended anything more than the usual syntactic validity when he wrote > > "valid strings". There was no intended change of meaning from the > > quotes you give at the beginning to the syntax-only meaning clearly > > elaborated in quote I gave from later on. > > > > I doubt anyone has any appetite for more of this, but this means you > > have still not cited a CS-related source that uses your meaning of the > > term. > > > OK, so defeated. It's not a competition (or shouldn't be). Compare Jacob's response in another thread - "I stand corrected. Thanks". Surely that's the more mature response to having your knowledge improved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 12:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Wow... (Was: "...the value becomes,indeterminate each time the declaration is reached") |
| Message-ID | <q50m2q$6ek$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #141294 |
In article <8a372b81-131c-40a3-8d7c-3005511ddd10@googlegroups.com>, <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sunday, 24 February 2019 21:43:51 UTC, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sunday, 24 February 2019 20:47:12 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> > For what it's worth I contacted the author. He confirms that he never >> > intended anything more than the usual syntactic validity when he wrote >> > "valid strings". There was no intended change of meaning from the >> > quotes you give at the beginning to the syntax-only meaning clearly >> > elaborated in quote I gave from later on. >> > >> > I doubt anyone has any appetite for more of this, but this means you >> > have still not cited a CS-related source that uses your meaning of the >> > term. >> > >> OK, so defeated. > >It's not a competition (or shouldn't be). Compare Jacob's response in >another thread - "I stand corrected. Thanks". Surely that's the more >mature response to having your knowledge improved. Wow. Just, wow. -- b w r w g y b r y b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87ftsrk7xb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #140912 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 10:55:41 UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> [...] >> > "Grammar" has a useful meaning. Don't mistake your difficulties with >> > the concept - and it is quite difficult to use language to talk about >> > itself, with "grammar" not being a useful and important word, >> > in the sense it is used in linguistics. >> > But computer grammars are not full grammars, even in the narrow sense >> > of specifying all the rules of a computer language like C. >> >> You assert that a "grammar" specifies "all the rules" of C. >> >> I'll ask this one more time. >> >> Malcolm, will you at least acknowledge that most of us use the word >> "grammar" to refer to the syntax in Annex A? A simple "yes" would be >> sufficient, even if you think we're wrong to use the word that way. >> >> If you're unwilling to acknowledge that, then I will conclude that >> any discussion with you regarding what "grammar" means will be >> useless, and I will encourage everyone else to recognize the same >> thing and stop trying to argue with you. >> > Yes, that's how the C standard uses the term, and how Ben is using it. I think you have fallen in the trap of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you holds the same opinions. I am well-aware of the wider meaning (I posted the definition, remember?). I am well aware of formal grammars that can be used to specify language semantics (an attribute grammar can give the exact operational semantics for every valid language text). My objections have been very specific to C and its undefined behaviour. They range from details such as "the C grammar" should be reserved for a very narrow meaning, given that this is comp.lang.c, to the fact that undefined behaviour is not a decidable property of a program's text. > It not what the term "grammar" really means. That's a remarkably naive thing to say; so much so that I don't really think you mean it. There is no reasonable way to determine what a word "really" means other than to examine it's use in communication, and a word like grammar is unlikely to one, and only one, such use. Dictionaries can help out here because they curate the various established meanings, but I had to search about for one that included the most general meaning -- the one I knew you intended -- because many limit the meaning to syntax and morphology; they stop short of semantics. Your meaning is right out on the margins, at least as far as dictionaries are concerned. > It's broader than that. > It means "all the rules of the language", or "rules that distinguish > meaning from non-meaning". The bottom line for me is that even the broadest meaning of "grammatical" should be a property of a program text alone (independent of implementation, build options and input). Using the term in such a way that makes the scanf program I posted "ungrammatical" is not useful. Quite separately, the phrase "a grammatical C program" should simply be one that satisfies C's grammar as defined by the language standard. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 08:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ae508b6f-26a7-45b5-90d5-8be18a490d2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #140943 |
On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:46:54 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 10:55:41 UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >> [...] > >> > "Grammar" has a useful meaning. Don't mistake your difficulties with > >> > the concept - and it is quite difficult to use language to talk about > >> > itself, with "grammar" not being a useful and important word, > >> > in the sense it is used in linguistics. > >> > But computer grammars are not full grammars, even in the narrow sense > >> > of specifying all the rules of a computer language like C. > >> > >> You assert that a "grammar" specifies "all the rules" of C. > >> > >> I'll ask this one more time. > >> > >> Malcolm, will you at least acknowledge that most of us use the word > >> "grammar" to refer to the syntax in Annex A? A simple "yes" would be > >> sufficient, even if you think we're wrong to use the word that way. > >> > >> If you're unwilling to acknowledge that, then I will conclude that > >> any discussion with you regarding what "grammar" means will be > >> useless, and I will encourage everyone else to recognize the same > >> thing and stop trying to argue with you. > >> > > Yes, that's how the C standard uses the term, and how Ben is using it. > > I think you have fallen in the trap of thinking that everyone who > disagrees with you holds the same opinions. > > I am well-aware of the wider meaning (I posted the definition, > remember?). I am well aware of formal grammars that can be used to > specify language semantics (an attribute grammar can give the exact > operational semantics for every valid language text). > > My objections have been very specific to C and its undefined behaviour. > They range from details such as "the C grammar" should be reserved for a > very narrow meaning, given that this is comp.lang.c, to the fact that > undefined behaviour is not a decidable property of a program's text. > Undefined behaviour creates problems, because a program is accepted but not allowed. Normally with grammar you conflate the two things, if a sentence is accepted, the language also allows it. But C doesn't allow undefined behaviour, it's a rule of the language. And often it can be determined from the text alone, the program must have UB whenever it is run. So it's hard to say that we can agree that such programs have meaning. Unless we use "grammatical" to mean "accepted by the compiler", which is legitimate but, as you said, "vacuous" - I wouldn't go as far as that, but it's not a very illuminating way in which to use the term, we can just say "compileable". When UB can't be determined from the text, it can often be determined quite straighforwardsly by assuming that any data input is possible, then the true awfulness of C comes to the fore. You can't even add two integers without sanity checking them first. If you could rely on the fact that the program would say "Integer overflow" and terminate that would be correct behaviour and OK, but you can't. But the program text is what is defective, and it's not a logical error - number_of_people = number_of_men + number_of_women - nothing wrong with that logic, the snag is that there are more than 2 billion of us, so it's a problem with the way the language has been used. So in other words it's a grammar error. Then sometimes UB can't be determined except by running the program. However it can always be removed (write a C interpreter and cut and paste the text). > > > It not what the term "grammar" really means. > > That's a remarkably naive thing to say; so much so that I don't really > think you mean it. > Caught. > > The bottom line for me is that even the broadest meaning of > "grammatical" should be a property of a program text alone (independent > of implementation, build options and input). Using the term in such a > way that makes the scanf program I posted "ungrammatical" is not useful. > The rules refer to context, but only in a very minor way. Then you can say that the data is sanity-checked by something outside of the program, so it doesn't matter that it has UB for some inputs. But "ungrammatical" doesn't usually mean "total gibberish", there's often just a slight flaw in meaning or form. > > Quite separately, the phrase "a grammatical C program" should simply be > one that satisfies C's grammar as defined by the language standard. > Yes, but you shouldn't reject "an ungrammatical C program" for one that has a constraint violation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 18:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q41is4$htr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140945 |
On 13/02/2019 17:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 15:46:54 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 10:55:41 UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> [...] >>>>> "Grammar" has a useful meaning. Don't mistake your difficulties with >>>>> the concept - and it is quite difficult to use language to talk about >>>>> itself, with "grammar" not being a useful and important word, >>>>> in the sense it is used in linguistics. >>>>> But computer grammars are not full grammars, even in the narrow sense >>>>> of specifying all the rules of a computer language like C. >>>> >>>> You assert that a "grammar" specifies "all the rules" of C. >>>> >>>> I'll ask this one more time. >>>> >>>> Malcolm, will you at least acknowledge that most of us use the word >>>> "grammar" to refer to the syntax in Annex A? A simple "yes" would be >>>> sufficient, even if you think we're wrong to use the word that way. >>>> >>>> If you're unwilling to acknowledge that, then I will conclude that >>>> any discussion with you regarding what "grammar" means will be >>>> useless, and I will encourage everyone else to recognize the same >>>> thing and stop trying to argue with you. >>>> >>> Yes, that's how the C standard uses the term, and how Ben is using it. >> >> I think you have fallen in the trap of thinking that everyone who >> disagrees with you holds the same opinions. >> >> I am well-aware of the wider meaning (I posted the definition, >> remember?). I am well aware of formal grammars that can be used to >> specify language semantics (an attribute grammar can give the exact >> operational semantics for every valid language text). >> >> My objections have been very specific to C and its undefined behaviour. >> They range from details such as "the C grammar" should be reserved for a >> very narrow meaning, given that this is comp.lang.c, to the fact that >> undefined behaviour is not a decidable property of a program's text. >> > Undefined behaviour creates problems, because a program is accepted > but not allowed. I think you are conflating two, perhaps three things here. Writing code which may have undefined behaviour /is/ allowed - and while some people consider that a bad thing, others view it as a good thing. For example, I see it as a good thing that signed integer overflow is undefined behaviour in C - it gives the compiler more chance to warn about errors in the code, and it gives it more chance to optimise efficiency. Defining this behaviour could make code less efficient and would give defined but incorrect and unwanted answers in most cases. Attempting to /execute/ code with undefined behaviour is a bad thing - you have no idea what will happen. In some cases - but certainly not all cases - the compiler may be able to detect that execution of undefined behaviour is inevitable in the code, and can then give you a warning or error in a similar manner to when there is a syntax error. Also note that "undefined behaviour" in the C standards merely means that the C standards do not define a behaviour - the hardware, compiler, host OS, or other things may define the behaviour. > Normally with grammar you conflate the two things, > if a sentence is accepted, the language also allows it. But C doesn't > allow undefined behaviour, it's a rule of the language. Please give chapter and verse for that "rule". 3.4.3 merely says: """ undefined behavior behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct or of erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements """ It is not a /language/ that has undefined behaviour, it is /code/ that has undefined behaviour. If a function is specified as "int sqrt(int x) - return the integer square root of a non-negative x" then the behaviour of the function on "sqrt(-1)" is undefined because no one has defined its behaviour. That applies to /any/ language. > And often it > can be determined from the text alone, the program must have UB whenever > it is run. I would not say "often" - I'd say "occasionally". (There are some kinds of undefined behaviour which can be determined reliably at compile time, such as using types incorrectly, mismatching quotation marks, etc. These are not included as part of the C grammar because they would make the grammar large and unwieldy, but could reasonably be included in a wider definition of "grammar" in that they can be identified from the text alone.) > So it's hard to say that we can agree that such programs have > meaning. Unless we use "grammatical" to mean "accepted by the compiler", > which is legitimate but, as you said, "vacuous" - I wouldn't go as > far as that, but it's not a very illuminating way in which to use the > term, we can just say "compileable". > When UB can't be determined from the text, it can often be determined > quite straighforwardsly by assuming that any data input is possible, > then the true awfulness of C comes to the fore. But that is a completely nonsensical assumption. Functions, and programs, are specified for a given set of inputs (and state, if they are stateful). If the function gives defined behaviour for all specified inputs, then it is fully defined. It does not matter what happens when an invalid input is given. One of the /beauties/ of C - and a key reason for its success as an efficient language - is that it does not assume that all people writing or using functions are morons. It assumes that they are competent and honest - and only use functions with appropriate input. This is only "awful" if you are an incompetent or dishonest programmer. That way, you only need to check for inappropriate inputs at the boundaries - parts of the code which might be used by potentially incompetent or dishonest people (otherwise known as "users"). > You can't even add > two integers without sanity checking them first. Of course you can. You just can't do it with integers whose sum is too big for the type in use. The same applies to every programming language - there are no exceptions. > If you could rely > on the fact that the program would say "Integer overflow" and terminate > that would be correct behaviour and OK, but you can't. That would not be OK at all. It would have failed to add the integers. > But the program > text is what is defective, and it's not a logical error - number_of_people > = number_of_men + number_of_women - nothing wrong with that logic, > the snag is that there are more than 2 billion of us, so it's a problem > with the way the language has been used. So in other words it's a grammar > error. Trying to add two numbers that are too big for their types is a programmer error. It is not a fault of the language, nor is it a grammar error. And if you are talking about 32-bit signed integers here, and adding 2 billion to 2 billion, there is /no/ correct answer. It does not matter whether you return -294,967,296, or an error message, or crash the computer, or launch nasal daemons - the answer is incorrect. > Then sometimes UB can't be determined except by running the program. > However it can always be removed (write a C interpreter and cut and > paste the text). It can be removed by writing correct code in the first place - or by using functions according to their specifications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-11 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnk1i6rofk.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #140851 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> One characteristic of undefined behaviour in C is that the program text
> has an error in it.
> Of course we can call the program text "grammatical" if by that we mean
> "accepted by the C compiler", and that's a legitimate use of the word.
That's not what most of us mean by "grammatical". A C compiler
can accept any input that doesn't include a #error directive after
translation phase 4 -- including inputs that violate the syntax in
Annex A.
Malcolm, will you at least acknowledge that most of us use the word
"grammar" to refer to the syntax in Annex A? A simple "yes" would be
sufficient, even if you think we're wrong to use the word that way.
[...]
> Take this
>
> int x, y;
>
> y = x;
>
> The C compiler has to accept that. But of course it is incorrect, and most
> compilers will warn about it. We could and often do declare warnings to
> be errors, then it's "ungrammatical".
No, a C compiler doesn't have to accept it. If that's the entire
source file, it's invalid, since statements cannot appear at
file scope. If it's inside a function definition, it has undefined
behavior, and the compiler is permitted to terminate the translation
with a diagnostic message.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-10 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnva1rs7bg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #140826 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> A compiler turns some strings into executables and rejects others. So
> it has grammar rules, in the first sense. What's confusing you is that
> in basic computer science class rules for composing strings like "aab
> aaaabaabaaaaab" are described as "grammars". The strings have a form,
> but don't mean anything. So the so-called "grammar" actually lacks an
> essential attribute of grammar. Then it's not sufficient, it needs
> extra higher level rules if it is to specify a real programming language.
[...]
No, what's confusing *you* is that, in the context of programming
languages, the word "grammar" is used to refer to *syntax*, in the
sense defined, for example, in Annex A of the C standard.
A.1 is titled "Lexical grammar". A.2 is titled "Phase structure
grammar".
Rules defining constraints and semantics are not referred to as
"grammar" rules. I understand that the word "grammar" might be
appropriate by analogy with the way we talk about, for example,
English grammar, but that's not the way the word is typically used
for programming languages.
You insist on using the word "grammar" in a much wider sense,
and you refuse to acknowledge that any other use of the word could
be correct.
I don't expect you to acknowledge the possibility that you might
be wrong.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web