Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...

On 11/09/2024 01:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
 

And yes I'm still committed to that symmetry. I'ved used it for countless
language implementations. C is little different other than it has a
700-page standard that suggests a recommended model of how it's supposed to
work.
>
You can't really use that to bash me about the head with and maintain that
all my ideas about language implementation are wrong because C views
assignment in its own idiosyncratic manner.

 I don't want to bash you about the head, but what C says about
assignment has /always/ been the point, and your implementation of C
will be wrong if you don't follow the rules about C's assignments.  You
/know/ the LH and RH side of a C assignment have different constraints
(you have said so yourself) yet you persist in defending your original
claim that what is needed on the two sides "is exactly the same".

I've listed the aspects that I said are the same.
That is, if something is a legal LHS term, then its syntax, and its type, are identical to that term appearing on the RHS.
(And by its type, I mean its base type. So given 'int a,b; a=b;', I'm talking about 'int' not 'int*'.)
There can additionally be similarities within internal representations.

Tim suggests that there is communication failure here -- that you have
not expressed what you mean clearly enough.  That may be so, but I can't
see how to interpret what you've written in any other way.

Or people simply can't grasp what I'm saying. I've given a million examples of identical LHSs and RHSs, and they insist on saying they're asymmmetric (while also insisting that it's the A=.A of BLISS that has true symmetry!).
I acknowledge that LHSs are written and RHSs are read (and also that, while A=A has true reflective symmetry, B=B doesn't, if that's what bothers some).