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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #103103

Re: comparison logic

From Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: comparison logic
Date 2017-02-03 16:42 -0800
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <kfntw8aaird.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> (permalink)
References (12 earlier) <lnd1fpjofi.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnwpdvk43o.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnfukjfvd3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnmve8hfz6.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <ln1svkbal2.fsf@kst-u.example.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>>>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Provided 'i' is not a volatile-qualified int variable!
>>>>>>> (Sorry, I can't resit nit-picking.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there is a second-order nit-picking rule in play here,
>>>>>> analogous to the rule about pointing out a spelling correction.
>>>>>> (yes, I can't resit either.)
>>>>>
>>>>> What is a "variable"?
>>>>
>>>> I assume the word "variable" here is supposed to mean a declared
>>>> compile-time entity that corresponds to an object at run-time.
>>>> Given the context, I don't know what else it could mean.
>>>
>>> Of course.  The context was silly nitpicking, and the standard
>>> doesn't use the word "variable" in that sense.
>>
>> It doesn't, but I don't understand why you think of your
>> statement as nitpicking, since the original context doesn't
>> represent "variable" as being used in any sense other than the
>> regular English usage.  Or maybe you thought of it as a silly
>> nitpick?  The earlier comments were a bit silly, but I didn't
>> think either of their nitpicks were silly, just nitpicks.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what the "regular English usage" of the word
> "variable" is at it applies to C.

I mean in the sense of a definition that might be found in a
regular dictionary of English, as opposed to some specialized
technical dictionary or a technical requirements document like
the ISO C standard.

> In Ben's nitpick, "object"
> would have been more accurate than "variable".

I don't agree with this assessment.  The original remark looks
like it is making a statement about an identifier 'i'.  An
identifier is not an object.  An identifier may be associated
with an object, but it is not itself an object.  Text in the
Standard is sloppy about this distinction but that doesn't mean
we have to be.  The word "variable", however, is perfectly apt
for making a statement about an identifier, as opposed to the
memory area set aside at run time to hold the value.  In this
context the word "variable" is a better fit than the word
"object" for what it is that is being talked about.  (Note also
that the word "variable" is what was used in the posting Ben was
responding to.)

> For example, it
> would apply to a const-qualified object, which isn't something
> I'd refer to as a "variable".

Whether you would say so or not, such usage is in common parlance
and widely understood.  What is in the Standard doesn't change the
meaning of ordinary English, even if the meanings in question
apply only in technical dialect.

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

Thread

linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-07 23:49 -0800
  Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-08 21:20 +1300
    Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-08 01:32 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 11:08 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 03:25 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0100
            OT Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:18 -0800
      Re: linking precedence rules Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-01-08 15:38 -0800
        Re: linking precedence rules "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 18:46 -0500
        Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-12 04:13 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-12 12:21 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 00:23 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-16 06:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 05:10 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-02-04 17:12 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 20:47 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-12 13:31 +0000
            Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-13 01:58 -0800
              Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 10:41 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 03:49 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 12:03 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 14:02 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 13:46 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:23 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:31 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 16:18 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 17:49 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 17:21 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 10:12 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 21:59 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:12 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-15 11:39 +1300
                Re: linking precedence rules Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-14 16:03 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 11:51 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 02:04 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-14 23:48 +0100
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 20:28 +0000
                The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-14 14:14 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-14 14:29 +0000
                Re: The Unix way vs. the Windows way (Was: linking precedence rules) supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 14:20 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-15 01:40 -0800
                Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-15 11:43 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-18 19:55 +0000
                Re: linking precedence rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-14 14:22 +0000
              Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 16:05 +0100
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 15:37 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 16:06 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-13 19:37 +0100
                Re: comparison logic BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-13 18:42 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-13 18:49 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 20:50 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-14 01:05 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Michael Holiday <Mike@example.invalid> - 2017-01-14 01:27 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 13:56 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-15 14:45 +0000
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 20:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-15 21:04 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 04:47 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 11:40 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 16:42 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 18:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 21:03 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 08:07 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 08:50 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 12:15 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 12:38 -0800
                Re: comparison logic supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 14:13 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 14:45 -0800
                Re: comparison logic Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-12 10:20 -0800
          Re: linking precedence rules BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-12 14:32 +0000
          Re: linking precedence rules James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-12 13:33 -0500

csiph-web