Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à l c 
Sujet : Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
De : tr.17687 (at) *nospam* z991.linuxsc.com (Tim Rentsch)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 18. Aug 2024, 03:22:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <868qwufwvi.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 17/08/2024 15:41, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
OK.  So why do you agree with this:
>
                            C call-by-value         call-by-reference
                            ===============         =================
        (pointer argument)  F(p)                    (disallowed)
>
What is 'pointer argument' here?
>
Try thinking harder.  Everyone else understood.
>
I could equally say that everyone understood what was meant by
implicit cast'.

It would be a useful exercise for you to compare and contrast
those two statements, listing their similarities and differences.

But here you really have to explain what you mean by a pointer
argument, since there is no reason why such a type can't be passed
by reference.
>
Lacking such an explanation, I'd have to say still that
'disallowed' is generally incorrect.

What is incorrect is your understanding of what was meant.

Let me elaborate on that.  Some of the people who post here are
interested in listening, and usually make an effort to understand in
cases where a first reading leaves them confused.  Others, not so
much.  More generally, there is a spectrum of interest/effort, with
people who make a large effort at one end, and people who make
little or not effort at the other end.

Somewhat paradoxically, it is the people who are most intent on
listening who are the ones most worth listening to.  Conversely,
people who don't make much of an effort to listen and understand
are usually not worth listening to.

You are definitely closer to the no effort end of the spectrum than
you are to the other end.  You are much more focused on what you
want to say than you are in what the other person is saying.
That's a lot of the reason people dismiss your comments.  It also
reduces the chance that you will get useful responses.  Your first
response up above is a case in point.  It's typical of you.  Given
this entirely predictable reaction, I have very little incentive to
try to explain anything, because I don't think you're going to hear
the explanation.

I don't expect any of the above to change the way you act, but just
in case, here is a suggestion.  When you read something that seems
not to make sense, ask yourself a question:  What might have been
meant here so that this statement is right?  If you don't look for
alternative interpretations you won't ever find any.  On the flip
side, the more often you look for alternative interpretations and
the more effort you put into doing so, the more likely you are to
have meaningful interactions with other people in the group, unlike
the meaningless interactions you usually have.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jul 24 * technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?301aotto1968
5 Jul 24 +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?298Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?297BGB
5 Jul 24 i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1yeti
5 Jul 24 i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?267Keith Thompson
5 Jul 24 i i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?264BGB
5 Jul 24 i ii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?18Ben Bacarisse
5 Jul 24 i iii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?17BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?14Ben Bacarisse
6 Jul 24 i iii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?9BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii ii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2David Brown
6 Jul 24 i iii iii`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
7 Jul 24 i iii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6Ben Bacarisse
7 Jul 24 i iii ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Keith Thompson
7 Jul 24 i iii ii i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
7 Jul 24 i iii ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
7 Jul 24 i iii ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2bart
7 Jul 24 i iii ii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4Malcolm McLean
6 Jul 24 i iii i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2bart
7 Jul 24 i iii i   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Janis Papanagnou
6 Jul 24 i iii  `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
5 Jul 24 i ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?245Keith Thompson
6 Jul 24 i ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?244Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Jul 24 i ii  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?228BGB
6 Jul 24 i ii  i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
6 Jul 24 i ii  i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6James Kuyper
6 Jul 24 i ii  ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?5BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3Michael S
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
7 Jul 24 i ii  i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?220Keith Thompson
7 Jul 24 i ii  i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?215BGB
7 Jul 24 i ii  i i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?214James Kuyper
7 Jul 24 i ii  i i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?213BGB
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?212James Kuyper
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i   `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?211Kaz Kylheku
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Ben Bacarisse
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?207James Kuyper
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?206BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?205David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?197bart
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?194Ben Bacarisse
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?193bart
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?184Ben Bacarisse
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii ii `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?180bart
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?178Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?177bart
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i   `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?176Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Thiago Adams
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?167bart
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Janis Papanagnou
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?54Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?14Michael S
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?8David Brown
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?7Michael S
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6Kaz Kylheku
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?5Michael S
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Kaz Kylheku
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Ben Bacarisse
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Kaz Kylheku
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?39bart
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?37Michael S
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?34bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Michael S
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?32Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?31bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii  i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?28Keith Thompson
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii   `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?27bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?25Keith Thompson
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?15bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?14David Brown
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?12bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Janis Papanagnou
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?7David Brown
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2bart
13 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
13 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3David Brown
17 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Bart
17 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3Keith Thompson
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2James Kuyper
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?9bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Thiago Adams
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Keith Thompson
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1James Kuyper
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2James Kuyper
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?109Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?7Janis Papanagnou
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?8Kaz Kylheku
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Keith Thompson
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Michael S
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Jul 24 i ii  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?9James Kuyper
7 Jul 24 i ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6Keith Thompson
6 Jul 24 i i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?26bart
5 Jul 24 i `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1lexi hale
7 Jul 24 `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Bonita Montero

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal