Sujet : Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }]
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 11. Apr 2025, 00:10:12
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vt9j4j$1rdm$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/04/2025 23:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 10.04.2025 17:12, bart wrote:
On 10/04/2025 15:33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
On 10/04/2025 12:28, Keith Thompson wrote:
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
Someone, not anyone but the all-knowing Tim, said: "and those types
are not compatible, because the two struct tags are different."
>
Do you agree with that? Or is there something more to making two types
be incompatible?
>
I don't recall the exact discussion
>
It stems from this, a reply from DB dated: "Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:50:56
+0200". (About half way down there is some quoted code of mine.)
>
It concerned two struct types in different translations units, which
needed to be compatible for the test program to work corectly.
>
I said they were compatible enough. David said they were entirely
compatible. Tim said "No they are not". Three different opinions.
>
If you pretend not to understand the C standard, you can argue
about it forever.
>
It's been explained to you more than once, but really, just read
the flippin standard and stop arguing.
>
Fucking hell.
>
Three people have said three different things. They can't all be right.
>
But according to you, only one of them is wrong: me, even though the
other two have made exactly opposite claims!
>
So to you it's not about who's right and who's wrong; you are just
CONSTANTLY having a go at me personally for reasons that are nothing to
do with the subject. That is persecution.
>
In fact you don't really care about the topic (if you're even aware of
it). So, FUCK YOU.
>
As for reading the standard, since that is this group's favourite
subject, then why does the group even exist? Since every possible
question can be answered there.
"I don't recall the exact discussion", and less the context of any
formulation in any of the many posts. I also don't understand what
your goal is. As I see it some posters tried to explain aspects of
the topic to you, and they feel that you didn't understand it but
are instead arguing just for the argument. Your post seems to show
a desire that you want one (or two) of these posters to be wrong.
It was suggested to you to refer to the standard document to clear
the topic since there's obviously an unsolvable communication issue
between the participants.
I basically do agree with your perception of this newsgroup and its
purpose. But...
*If* you're really interested in the topic, and since all the other
posters obviously gave up to continue explaining their sight to you,
why don't you accept that suggestion and read the standard document
to have clarity about the topic? [FYI; this was a rhetoric question.]
I've read the document, or the relevant section. According to that, DB was wrong, and TR was half-right.
Neither of them is willing to back down, while no one else is willing to back me up: KT will not say anything against his mates, and SL hasn't really got a clue about the topic, but he never misses a change to put the boot in when I'm already on the ground.
Janis
[...]
do { quit; } else { }
Re: do { quit; } else { }