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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #101684

Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops

Show all headers | View raw

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:

> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 3:26:10 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>>
>>> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> The key passage in section 1 paragraph 2 is the reference to
>>>>
>>>>     all minimal requirements of a data-processing system that is
>>>>     capable of supporting a conforming implementation.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this shows that WG14 regards "data-processing system"
>>>> and "implementation" as separate and distinct elements.  Do you
>>>> agree with that impression?  Or do you think WG14 has a different
>>>> opinion on the matter?
>>>
>>> If I offer a pair of black boxes such that feeding a program into the
>>> first yields a bunch of seemingly-arbitrary bytes, but feeding those
>>> bytes into the second yields the output the program would be required
>>> to produce, would that pair of boxes be a conforming implementation?
>>> I would suggest that it would.
>>>
>>> If I were to only offer you the first box, however, would you consider
>>> that to be a conforming C implementation?  If it would, how would you
>>> distinguish it from a cryptographic pseudo-random generator that uses
>>> the input source text as its seed?
>>>
>>> I would suggest that for something to be a conforming C implementation,
>>> it must include everything necessary to take input in some text form,
>>> and produce something that can be interpreted as the proper output.
>>> The Standard doesn't describe a C implementation as something which
>>> produces a collection of information that, when fed to some other
>>> unspecified device, will cause that device to produce the required
>>> output.  It describes the C implementation as something that produces
>>> the required output itself.
>>
>> You didn't answer my question.
>
> I would expect that WG14's view would be similar to what I
> expressed in the last paragraph.  [...]

The question allows, and even encourages, one of two short,
simple, direct answers.  (Hint:  the longer one has three
letters.)

Rather than opt for one of the obvious simple answers, you
chose instead to give a long-winded and indirect reference to
some of your earlier gobbledygook.  I think even you aren't
sure what you're saying, but certainly others are not.

For your next writing, try to remember:  use short, simple,
direct sentences.

Your grade on this assignment:  F.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 13:26 -0800
  Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-29 15:22 -0800
    Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-13 15:33 -0800
      Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-13 15:54 -0800
        Re: Stumped on the role of a particular statement in a program with Arrays & Nested For Loops Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-31 07:43 -0800

csiph-web