Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 15:40:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <20240829083200.195@kylheku.com>
References: <vab101$3er$1@reader1.panix.com>
 <vad7ns$1g27b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vad8lr$1fv5u$1@dont-email.me> <vaf7f0$k51$2@reader1.panix.com>
 <vafgb2$1to4v$2@dont-email.me>
 <92ab79736a70ea1563691d22a9b396a20629d8cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vafim7$1ubg8$1@dont-email.me> <vah4hr$2b9i8$5@dont-email.me>
 <vahngt$2dtm9$1@dont-email.me> <87r0abzcsj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vai1ec$2fns2$1@dont-email.me> <874j75zftu.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <valrj7$367a8$2@dont-email.me> <87mskwy9t1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vanq4h$3iieb$1@dont-email.me> <875xrkxlgo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vapitn$3u1ub$1@dont-email.me> <87o75bwlp8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vaps06$3vg8l$1@dont-email.me> <871q27weeh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:40:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee676becc5cc43d653dc7d1580a96201";
	logging-data="37359"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JXCixfQJhdLp86BTFMa+wddLLZQAM0Pk="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Mudk/AIbD9yfGm3BbATMg4AtzU=
Bytes: 3477

On 2024-08-29, Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 29/08/2024 13:35, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>>> I explained that. LHS and RHS can be identical terms for assignment in
>>>> pretty much every aspect, but there are extra constraints on the LHS.
>>> So you use "exactly the same" to mean "exactly the same except for the
>>> differences".
>>
>> No, I do mean exactly the same, both in terms of syntax and (in my
>> implementations, which are likely typical) internal representation of those
>> terms.
>>
>> There are no differences other than where the type system says your code is
>> invalid. So are no differences when considering only valid programs.
>>
>> This program in my language:
>>
>>      42 := 42
>>
>> is valid syntax.
>
> So what?  We were talking about assignment in C.  You cut the two
> previous quotes where it was clear we were talking about C.  This is not
> an honest thing to do.  You are arguing for the sake if it, and in a
> dishonest way too.

It's also valid syntax in C, with a constraint violation that can be
"caught later on" in an implementation of C, just like in Bart's
language.

ISO C doesn't say anything about when errors are caught, other than it
being associated with translation phase 7:

  White-space characters separating tokens are no longer significant. Each
  preprocessing token is converted into a token. The resulting tokens are
  syntactically and semantically analyzed and translated as a translation
  unit.

A constraint violtion like the need for an lvalue could be caught during
the activity denoted by "semantically analyzed" rather than that denoted
by "syntactically analyzed" which would count as "later on" with regard
to syntax.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca