Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_technology_discussion_=E2=86=92_does_the_world_need?=
 =?UTF-8?B?IGEgIm5ldyIgQyA/?=
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:35:42 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v9smae$2c428$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <v6oct4$2djgq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6of96$2ekb0$1@dont-email.me> <v6ovfc$2hcpf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6p4hf$2icph$1@dont-email.me> <v6qgpu$2t6p7$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6r33m$30grj$1@dont-email.me> <20240712154252.00005c2f@yahoo.com>
 <86o7717jj1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v6ti10$3gru4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v78af7$1qkuf$1@dont-email.me> <20240717163457.000067bb@yahoo.com>
 <v78piu$1su4u$1@dont-email.me> <86a5hep45h.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v9ktep$v5sk$1@dont-email.me> <87y14xsvnh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v9l95b$10ogv$1@dont-email.me> <87sev5s51s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v9nn5q$1f3op$1@dont-email.me> <86jzgfgqki.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v9qlco$1vqpa$1@dont-email.me> <868qwufwvi.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:35:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3b7af9ffbc5b2dc8e00c9bad01337f22";
	logging-data="2494536"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18t8eMcBUEeEGvmwjANIR9X"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zMv4i7g10oFB83b0uz/WiHQ4AtU=
In-Reply-To: <868qwufwvi.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5869

On 18/08/2024 02:22, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
>> On 17/08/2024 15:41, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> OK.  So why do you agree with this:
>>>>
>>>>>                              C call-by-value         call-by-reference
>>>>>                              ===============         =================
>>>>>          (pointer argument)  F(p)                    (disallowed)
>>>>
>>>> What is 'pointer argument' here?
>>>
>>> Try thinking harder.  Everyone else understood.
>>
>> I could equally say that everyone understood what was meant by
>> implicit cast'.
> 
> It would be a useful exercise for you to compare and contrast
> those two statements, listing their similarities and differences.
> 
>> But here you really have to explain what you mean by a pointer
>> argument, since there is no reason why such a type can't be passed
>> by reference.
>>
>> Lacking such an explanation, I'd have to say still that
>> 'disallowed' is generally incorrect.
> 
> What is incorrect is your understanding of what was meant.
> 
> Let me elaborate on that.  Some of the people who post here are
> interested in listening, and usually make an effort to understand in
> cases where a first reading leaves them confused.  Others, not so
> much.  More generally, there is a spectrum of interest/effort, with
> people who make a large effort at one end, and people who make
> little or not effort at the other end.
> 
> Somewhat paradoxically, it is the people who are most intent on
> listening who are the ones most worth listening to.  Conversely,
> people who don't make much of an effort to listen and understand
> are usually not worth listening to.
> 
> You are definitely closer to the no effort end of the spectrum than
> you are to the other end.  You are much more focused on what you
> want to say than you are in what the other person is saying.
> That's a lot of the reason people dismiss your comments.  It also
> reduces the chance that you will get useful responses.  Your first
> response up above is a case in point.  It's typical of you.  Given
> this entirely predictable reaction, I have very little incentive to
> try to explain anything, because I don't think you're going to hear
> the explanation.
> 
> I don't expect any of the above to change the way you act, but just
> in case, here is a suggestion.  When you read something that seems
> not to make sense, ask yourself a question:  What might have been
> meant here so that this statement is right?

Or what the poster may have written instead to make his meaning clearer 
and less ambiguous, and not requiring the reader to have to make 
assumptions or double-guess what the poster had in mind.

There is also the possibility that the poster may have made a mistake!

>  If you don't look for
> alternative interpretations you won't ever find any.

I did exactly that: see a few lines up.

>  On the flip
> side, the more often you look for alternative interpretations and
> the more effort you put into doing so, the more likely you are to
> have meaningful interactions with other people in the group, unlike
> the meaningless interactions you usually have.

So, there is no further explanation of what you meant, which would have 
taken a tenth of that text. So I can only conclude that you wrote 
something that was incorrect, but don't want to admit it. That's fine.

However you seem intent on making personal attacks instead. That is not 
fine.

 > That's a lot of the reason people dismiss your comments.

That's up to them. But AFAIK I'm am the only person participating who 
actively devises and implements languages at this level, languages that 
include working implementations of pass-by-reference.

People here know that, but they might not like it. So they resort to 
personal insults, or to picking on casual turns of phrase.

They also choose to either belittle my experience or ignore it. For 
example you have not commented on my proposal to add pass-by-reference 
to C. This is the bigger reason why I didn't waste half a day 
implementing it.