Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch 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> References: <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 jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu writes: > On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 5:18:39 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> James Kuyper 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.