Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/7/2024 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:No, that requires knowing what does or at least whther itOn 2024-08-05 15:01:36 +0000, olcott said:void DDD()
On 8/5/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:Your reviewers don't need a clue. You need. But you don't have.On 2024-08-04 12:37:49 +0000, olcott said:Not at all.
On 8/4/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:Doesn't matter. Points of disagreement, both deep and shallow, areOn 2024-08-03 13:58:07 +0000, olcott said:*Ben has a deeper agreement with me than anyone else*
On 8/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:You don't know whether that is true.On 2024-08-02 20:57:26 +0000, olcott said:Fred's understanding is worse than that.
Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulatedEveryone here understands that that depends on whther HHH returns.
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Some have deeper understanding than that.In particular better than you.
*Ben has the best understanding of all*
more important than points of agreement.
Most of the reviewers simply don't have a clue that they
don't have a clue. The error is entirely on their side.
And you don't know you don't have so you don't seek. As you
don't seek you will never get.
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Any expert in the C language that knows what x86 emulators
are knows that DDD correctly emulated by HHH specifies what
is essentially equivalent to infinite recursion.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.