Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)
Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 16:49:24 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87a57mek8r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgpk6$1a47o$4@dont-email.me> <vvgpo7$15i5e$26@dont-email.me> <vvgq6o$1acph$1@dont-email.me> <vvgqgl$15i5e$27@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me> <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me> <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me> <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me> <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me> <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me> <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me> <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4> <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 01:49:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="302a6dd640940106301f9e87fdade96e"; logging-data="2375298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tHVPR6B5L1CveNCn60Z4Z"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:psGn1U2+mlgugBC/cnyKJ9j+whc= sha1:Mur/HX/vUyySb2q7g93FTiGkdFA=
Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:118066

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> void DDD()
> {
>   HHH(DDD);
>   return;
> }
>
> If you are a competent C programmer then you
> know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
> possibly each its own "return" instruction.

"cannot possibly each"?

I am a competent C programmer (and I don't believe you can make
the same claim).  I don't know what HHH is.  The name "HHH" tells
me nothing about what it's supposed to do.  Without knowing what
HHH is, I can't say much about your code (or is it pseudo-code?).

The return statement is harmless but unnecessary.

"void DDD()" should be "void DDD(void)" (unless you're using C23, but
we've established that your not).  Why did you choose to use empty
parentheses?  (If you answer nothing else, please answer that.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */