Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about nullptr
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:18 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <87y163inp9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6bavg$3pu5i$1@dont-email.me> <20240706054641.175@kylheku.com>
	<v6bfi1$3qn4u$1@dont-email.me> <l9ciO.7$cr5e.2@fx05.iad>
	<877cdyuq0f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2ckiO.19403$7Ej.4487@fx46.iad>
	<87plrpt4du.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9bCiO.7108$sXW9.3805@fx41.iad>
	<87jzhwu5v9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240708001722.280@kylheku.com>
	<v6gab6$qdd2$1@dont-email.me> <878qyctcdt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6gf23$r5pf$1@dont-email.me> <8734ojua2s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6h9su$vkip$1@dont-email.me> <87sewjsdc5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6m9bn$1vbsi$1@dont-email.me> <87cynkommh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6r6c7$3122q$1@dont-email.me> <87y166jh60.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6sn59$3dbk7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 01:00:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4f4e4c169ed239f3bff10529f9920c31";
	logging-data="362915"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rbltHl6KGHT7WLDnXpmiak1eKVfHD/JI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:htOefXXKzvPwrodG8tSkmp/iyvM=
	sha1:MGZt2RBVfUzmoOQNhNjBtPberZA=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.1a2108531bb0de659d2c.20240715000018BST.87y163inp9.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 3786

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 13.07.2024 01:59, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 11.07.2024 01:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Without such an example, your argument seems to be overly generic.
>>>
>>> That's why I had problems to "explain" the reasons to you; because
>>> it's so universal a property, so obvious (as I said), that I don't
>>> know what else I could say.
>> 
>> Yes, that's been the clear for a while now.  That's why, when you said
>> you could not say more, I was happy to leave it at that (my "ok").
>
> You again strip the post where my try for an explanation follows:

Of course; I have nothing to say about your explanation.  I understood
it from the very first time you posted it (although I suppose I might be
mistaken about that).  Nothing about it is in dispute.  Should I have
kept it and ignored it?

>>> What example could I give that explains that if you're looking for
>>> specific dedicated semantical values it's easier to look them up
>>> by [semantical] name than by a [ambiguous] number.
>
> Are those semantical names so meaningless to you?

No, I get it.

> Let's take the 'bool' sample; do you find it more helpful to look
> for numerical falues in the code than to look for standard literals
> like 'true' and 'false'? (It's not much different concerning 'NULL'.)

I have no recollection of an occasion when searching for true or false
has ever helped me to find a bug.  If you do, please recount the story.
That's the sort of thing that has been missing (for me).

> (But okay, given your last response patterns you seem to not be
> interested.)

I have always been interested in hearing more about your experiences
about what you called "bug-tracking".  That's why I asked "can you say
more?".  And when you said "no" I thought that would be the end of it.

(By the way, I still don't know what you mean by bug-tracking.  I've
assumed you mean tracking as in tracking down, i.e. finding and fixing
bugs rather than the more usual meaning of logging and recording details
of known bugs.)

-- 
Ben.