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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #163022

Re: #include <stdint.h>

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I think it's not so much misunderstanding as disagreement.
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Whether the C standard "actually says" that the va_arg rules apply
>>>>     to *printf functions is, I think, not an answerable question, and in
>>>>     any case not really a useful question for purposes of comp.lang.c.
>>>>
>>>> I simply disagree.  It is an answerable question, [...]
>>>
>>> The question I am considering does not have an objective answer.
>>> Did you not understand that?
>>
>> I understood what you said.  I think you're wrong.  Did you not
>> understand that?
>
> I understood your statement.  But I don't know what proposition
> it is that you think is wrong.

He was quite clear about that - your proposition that it is "not an
answerable question". He believes it is an answerable question - he said
so explicitly.

> ...  Please note what I said:  the
> question I am considering does not have an objective answer.

Precisely - that is the assertion he's clearly disagreeing with.


> ...  Are
> you assuming that the question I am considering is the same as
> the question you are considering?

The question of yours that he was talking about is clearly quoted above,
though I'll have to make a few minor changes to turn it into a proper
question:

Does "the C standard actually say that the va_arg rules apply to *printf
functions?".

That is the question that you've asserted is not answerable, and I agree
with Keith both that it is trivially answerable, and that the answer is
clearly "No.".


> ... My statement is about the
> question I am considering, not about the question you are
> considering.

I see no evidence to suggest that Keith is confusing your question about
what the standard says, with your statement about the answerability of
that question. Nor that he was talking about some other question.
Perhaps you are so strongly committed to the idea that it is
unanswerable that you can't imagine anyone disagreeing with you about
that point? He wrote, before the material quoted above:

The clipped the part of his response that said "... and the answer is
no;". The first part of that sentence was about your statement that the
question is unanswerable, and asserted Keith's belief that it is
answerable. The second part is the answer that Keith considers that
question to have. I'm in full agreement with him on both points.

The standard might be taken as implying that only those rules apply. I
would consider that a misinterpretation of the words of the standard,
but it might have been the committee's intent - it's certainly not
unheard of for the committee to fail to correctly express their intent.
However, the standard most definitively fails to say that they apply.

The wording the committee actually chose is subtly different from the
va_arg() rules, without being incompatible with those rules. If they had
simply intended for those rules to apply, and nothing more, it would
have been simpler to cross-reference those rules, rather than copying
those rules, and risking the possibility of the copy being subtly
different from the original. It seems much more plausible to me that
they would do that only if making the rules subtly different was their
whole point in writing it that way.

You have a habit of seeing ambiguity in wording that isn't really
ambiguous, and of using that supposed ambiguity to justify your own best
guess as to what the committee meant, even when that meaning
incompatible with the words they chose to use to express their intent.
And since you sincerely believe the words to be ambiguous, you don't
admit that the are incompatible.

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

Thread

#include <stdint.h> SIMON <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-06-13 23:08 +0100
  Re: #include <stdint.h> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-13 23:27 +0100
    Re: #include <stdint.h> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-13 23:57 +0100
      Re: #include <stdint.h> Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-14 09:03 +0200
        Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-14 01:23 -0700
          Re: #include <stdint.h> Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-14 12:31 +0200
        Re: #include <stdint.h> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-14 11:54 +0100
  Re: #include <stdint.h> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-13 18:34 -0400
  Re: #include <stdint.h> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-13 23:34 +0100
  Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-13 17:48 -0700
    Re: #include <stdint.h> Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-14 09:09 +0200
      Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-14 01:24 -0700
        Re: #include <stdint.h> Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-06-14 12:30 +0200
    Re: #include <stdint.h> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-06-24 10:31 -0700
      Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 11:28 -0700
        Re: #include <stdint.h> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-11 02:49 -0700
          Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-11 15:30 -0700
            Re: #include <stdint.h> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-16 03:33 -0700
              Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 12:31 -0700
                Re: #include <stdint.h> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-30 07:07 -0700
                Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 08:42 -0700
                Re: #include <stdint.h> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-06 03:55 -0700
                Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 07:06 -0700
                Re: #include <stdint.h> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-06 11:47 -0400
        Re: #include <stdint.h> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-10-06 09:35 -0700
          Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 10:06 -0700
          Re: #include <stdint.h> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-06 17:40 -0400
            Re: #include <stdint.h> Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-06 22:14 +0000
              Re: #include <stdint.h> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-10-06 20:06 -0400
                Re: #include <stdint.h> Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 02:15 +0000
      Re: #include <stdint.h> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-24 22:34 +0100
        Re: #include <stdint.h> Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-24 15:01 -0700
          Re: #include <stdint.h> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-24 15:26 -0700
        Re: #include <stdint.h> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-11 02:14 -0700

csiph-web