Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: ridiculous warning or not? |
| Date | 2012-12-17 14:39 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <kfnvcc0fglj.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <0.50c65ba5461bf0106f8c.20120908002514BST.87mx11pg9x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kfn627pff7r.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <ln627pl06u.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <kfny5kkwsqm.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnk3w4jred.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > [...] >> I understand that you would like how the Standard is read to be >> the same in comp.lang.c and comp.std.c. For now, though, let me >> suggest that conversations about that are better in comp.std.c, >> and for purposes of comp.lang.c it's better to read the Standard >> how you think the committee reads it or expects it will be read. >> Does that all make sense? > > Yes, more or less. In this particular case, though, there's a rule > that's only stated in an example, and that IMHO is not supported > by the normative text (though it could be with a small tweak). > Furthermore, it's a rule that doesn't make a whole lot of sense > to me. This raised, at least for me, a serious question about what > > int i[]; > > as an external definition with no later completion of the type > actually *means*, and whether it's even valid. It raises issues both > about the text of the standard (clearly appropriate for comp.std.c), > and about the semantics of the language defined by the standard > (clearly appropriate for comp.lang.c). Oh, that may be a difference between us. As far as I'm concerned, what happens in this case is both defined enough and clear enough (for purposes of comp.lang.c) so that there's no question about what's supposed to happen. I agree that the Standard could do a better job of expressing this, but not so much that anyone who wants to understand what semantics are dictated is likely to be misled. Let me ask it as a question: how likely is it (in your opinion) that someone reading the Standard will reach a wrong conclusion about what the behavior should be in such cases?
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
ridiculous warning or not? kerravon <kerravon@w3.to> - 2012-08-20 02:41 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-20 07:55 -0400
Re: ridiculous warning or not? army1987 <army1987@ask-for-it.invalid> - 2012-08-20 19:11 +0000
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-20 16:09 -0400
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:29 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-08-21 00:36 +0100
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-21 01:41 +0100
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-20 18:59 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 08:03 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-07 14:37 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 19:17 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-07 19:56 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-08 06:30 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:57 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 00:25 +0100
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 18:58 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-07 19:26 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-08 06:26 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-08 11:33 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 14:39 -0800
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-17 15:56 -0800
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-20 10:31 -0800
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-20 16:57 -0800
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-21 03:11 +0000
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-21 09:06 -0800
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 03:42 +0100
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-08 06:01 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 14:45 +0100
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-08 11:28 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 22:53 +0100
Re: ridiculous warning or not? kerravon <kerravon@w3.to> - 2012-08-21 03:25 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-21 11:20 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-21 21:07 +0100
Re: ridiculous warning or not? 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-21 14:39 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-21 22:09 +0000
Re: ridiculous warning or not? 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-21 15:13 -0700
Re: ridiculous warning or not? Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 07:17 -0700
csiph-web