Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ben Bacarisse Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes... Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:32:31 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: <87zfodix68.fsf@bsb.me.uk> References: <87o75bwlp8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <871q27weeh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240829083200.195@kylheku.com> <87v7zjuyd8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240829084851.962@kylheku.com> <87mskvuxe9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87tteqktr8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87ttenk2nq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <875xr3jaz0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 01:32:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b7858c5e222e20447475885d34c68cc"; logging-data="4052406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zyI+MhrNLl47DEBTmYwDgbSN7DLPrxX4=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fEdBCj8CPGTgtEOhtLvkrGXSlmY= sha1:oHQhpXEdcd6JyjVcF1CxaLUC1R8= X-BSB-Auth: 1.7617b09a5a4783d24f88.20240912003231BST.87zfodix68.fsf@bsb.me.uk Bytes: 5449 Bart writes: > On 11/09/2024 01:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bart 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. And you've stated that there are differences but of course you haven't listed them (as far as I can tell). > 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 you have /not/ stated, though you know it perfectly well, that the reverse does /not/ apply -- that many "legal" RHS expressions can't appear, legally, on the LHS. > (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, But your mistake is not that there are not millions of identical (looking) LH sides and RH sides. No one disputes that. But in reply to my statement that what is /required/ on both sides is not the same, you said "I would argue that it is exactly the same". Just one case where something different is required is enough to show that you should not "argue that it [what is required] is exactly the same". If all you are saying is that, in C, there are millions of examples where identical looking valid expression can appear on the left and right hand side of an assignment, no one would have objected (except to point out that that is not an interesting observation). But you seem to be saying more than that while offering (a) only evidence for that trivial truth and (b) accepting that the two sides have different constraints. Are you just saying that there are millions of examples of identical LH and RH sides? Because if so, this can end here -- I emphatically agree that there are! > and they insist on saying they're > asymmmetric (while also insisting that it's the A=.A of BLISS that has > true symmetry!). Assignment is always asymmetric in some sense because of what the two sides must mean. But BLISS permits both A = A and .A = .A because the same rules apply to what is permitted on both sides of an assignment. What's more, both sides are evaluated in exactly the same way to yield a bit pattern. In BLISS your claim that what is permitted on both sides is "exactly the same" is true. It's not true in C. > 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). > > > -- Ben.