Re: Problem with ranks

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.std.c
Subject	Re: Problem with ranks
Date	Sun, 28 Jun 2020 05:54:17 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	46
Message-ID	<868sg7ic5i.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	<ym86jKAqoCXFYStC@bongo-ra.co> <rasvjd$r7k$1@dont-email.me> <86r1v1rdaq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <26233d48-9673-4de8-aed6-ed4f0f4af78a@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info	reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ff34e83bcc6e4b254240f67d19971e6a"; logging-data="10742"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/nUZRvG37l+9reHRXoxGOHTYFgcx0MKpQ="
User-Agent	Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:7LlRVqXweqfE/Igaddk9HDQEUrY= sha1:xaFWy/jl32g3NLYiiHC9IgRejJw=
Xref	csiph.com comp.std.c:6134

Show key headers only | View raw

jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu writes:

> On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 5:18:39 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/29/20 9:55 PM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> - UINT1 is unsigned , has 40 value bits and no corresponding signed type.
>>>
>>> That, however, is permitted, since 6.2.5p6 is asymmetrical.
>>
>> No, it isn't.  Read 6.2.5 p6 more carefully. ...
>
> You're right.  While the part that I quoted is asymmetrical, the last
> part of that clause says:
>
> "The type _Bool and the unsigned integer types that correspond to the
> standard signed integer types are the _standard unsigned integer types_.
> The unsigned integer types that correspond to the extended signed
> integer types are the _extended unsigned integer types_. The standard
> and extended unsigned integer types are collectively called _unsigned
> integer types_."
>
> I've used '_' to mark the phrases that are in italics, indicating that
> the sentences containing those phrases constitute the official
> definitions of those terms.  Therefore, you are correct - UINT1 wouldn't
> qualify as an unsigned integer type, because it doesn't correspond to
> any signed integer type.
>
> I'd much prefer, in the future, if you would simply quote the relevant
> text, rather than asking me to "Read ... more carefully."  Based on
> previous experience with you, there's a pretty good chance that I won't
> recognize the text that you think is relevant, because in my opinion, it
> isn't relevant, though this particular case is not an example.

What I would like is a response more along these lines:  "Yes I
think I see what you're getting at.  That conclusion seems right
to me.  Thank you for the followup."  Not necessarily those
words exactly of course but as a fuzzy outline of a suggestion.

After there is some indication that you are trying to pay more
attention to what's important to me, I may be more receptive to
your requests about what is important to you.

Thread

Problem with ranks Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2020-05-30 01:55 +0000
  Re: Problem with ranks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-30 02:48 -0400
    Re: Problem with ranks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-30 02:18 -0700
      Re: Problem with ranks jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2020-05-30 07:11 -0700
        Re: Problem with ranks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-06-28 05:54 -0700
    Re: Problem with ranks James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-30 09:04 -0400
  Re: Problem with ranks Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-30 02:11 -0700

csiph-web