Re: question about linker

On 11/12/2024 20:46, David Brown wrote:

On 11/12/2024 18:20, bart wrote:

On 11/12/2024 16:51, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 11.12.2024 17:47, David Brown wrote:

Most C coding standards and style guides make that requirement
- not because the C compiler sees it as ambiguous, but because humans
often do.  (Or they misinterpret it.)

>
Yes, true. (We had that in our standards, too.)

>
So here you finally acknowledge there may be ambiguity from a human perspective.

 I don't think anyone has ever disagreed that you can write "if" statements with "else" in C in a way that is confusing or unclear to human readers.  (But it still has fixed and unambiguous meaning to the compiler.)
 Equally, of course, it is possible to write them in a way that is not confusing or unclear at all.
 But there is no ambiguity in the language itself - only possible confusions from the way the language could be used.  (And since the language is well defined here, it doesn't make sense to call it an ambiguity at all, even "from a human perspective".  Call it unclear, confusing, or deceptive code if you like.)
 I don't see that anyone has changed their position on this.
 

>
But when I try to make that very point, it's me making up unrealistic examples; I'm being deliberately obtuse; I clearly find things confusing that no one else has a problem with; or you make snarky comments like this:
>

 Sure.
 We all know it is possible to write unclear and confusing C code. There's a whole competition devoted to it!
 But we also all know that most C programmers - like programmers of any other language - usually avoid writing code they find unclear.  (Clarity is quite subjective - a solid proportion of programmers will agree roughly on a set of guidelines, but there will be outliers with very different positions.  This is independent of language.)
 

"I mean, if you get confused by an unambiguous syntaxes already,
what do you think happens with people if they have to program
in or understand an ambiguous language!"
>
It's astonishing how I have to fight across a dozen posts to back up my point of view (you even specifically said you didn't recognise my point).
>
And yet here: somebody makes that very same point, and you merely say:
>
"Yes, true."
>
It really is extraordinary.
>

 It was a totally different point.  It is extraordinary that you can't see that.
 You claimed the language and its grammar was ambiguous and confusing. It is not.

I don't think so. My main example which followed on from semicolons was about 'do while'. I said that, even though the C grammar makes it work, that it was fragile: adding or removing a semicolon could radically change the meaning.
This also comes up with 'while (cond); {...}'.
Here is what I said in one post:
BC:
 >Why is it not possible for to acknowledge that some language design  >patterns may not be as obvious as others?
 >According to you, even if some construct can be determined to be  >unambiguous in some convoluted grammar, then it must also be 100%  >obvious to any human reader?
This is little different from your remark here:  "...not because the C compiler sees it as ambiguous, but because humans often do.  (Or they misinterpret it.)"
But this was JP's reply:
JP:
 > Who said that? - Again you make up things just for your argument.
 >
 > An unambiguous grammar is something quite essential; how would you
 > parse code if it were ambiguous?
 >
 > To what ([hypothetical] "some") grammar are you referring to?
 >
 > If you mean the "C" grammar; what, concretely, you find to be
 > "convoluted"?
 >
 > You postulate it as if the grammar were convoluted; more likely
 > it's just your personal problem with understanding formal syntax.
 >
 > No one said, that everything is "100% obvious". An unambiguous
 > grammar is a precondition for for an understanding, though.
 >
 > If you'd have your excerpts and samples formatted in a common
 > (non-lunatic) way then it should have been "100% obvious" even
 > to you.
It then went on:
BC:
 >Is it just to avoid admitting that I might have a point?
JP:
 >>(Yet you haven't had one.)
A totally different attitude, dripping with condescension and contempt, compared to the "Yes, true" that you got.
He simply cannot admit that I could have a valid point; he must ALWAYS turn it around and make it about me personally.
Is it any wonder that I respond with some heat?