On 29/05/2026 20:28, Keith Thompson wrote:Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:>
or would you continue to post contrived examples that make it appear
as confusing as possible?
Examples are examples. Do you want me to post one that didn't
illustrate an issue? It necessaily has to be contrived.
>Bart, what do you want?>
>
Today I was just replying to this post today that I found annoying:
>
JP:Unsurprisingly; since exactly *that* was the obvious (and single)>
issue with C's precedence definitions.
That is, the suggestion, made several times by JP, that there is only
one thing wrong.
I note your refusal to address most of what I wrote.
Upthread, you asked a question:
And then the point becomes, if you always add the parentheses, what
was the point of having that particular precedence level?
You've made it clear that you were never interested in an answer.
Please do not waste everyone's time by asking questions when you're
not interested in the answers. Please do not assume that anyone
can tell whether one of your questions is sincere, figurative,
or rhetorical.
Bart, what do you want?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.