Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Mon, 05 May 2025 17:01:28 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <86bjs64nfr.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <86plhodtsw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250407210248.00006457@yahoo.com> <vt15lq$bjs0$3@dont-email.me> <vt2lp6$1qtjd$1@dont-email.me> <vt31m5$2513i$1@dont-email.me> <vt3d4g$2djqe$1@dont-email.me> <vt3iqh$2ka99$1@dont-email.me> <868qoaeezc.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vt3oeo$2oq3p$1@dont-email.me> <86mscqcpy1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vt48go$35hh3$2@dont-email.me> <86iknecjz8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vt4del$3a9sk$1@dont-email.me> <86o6x5at05.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vt712u$1m84p$1@dont-email.me> <20250409170901.947@kylheku.com> <vt88bk$2rv8r$1@dont-email.me> <87wmbs45oa.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86o6w64ppv.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87v7qefx4r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 02:01:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f84420402be78ce51ba0e8f0077f27e2";
	logging-data="1634369"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ExUo950L2YZJ6XBpeue5ok0P+gGA+Mk4="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ij+/2rL7oS6ZhYIgZrg9mqNrzlk=
	sha1:nqSd4gDT5rKWg+5/S8ho7FBuHBw=

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Someone, not anyone but the all-knowing Tim, said:  "and those types
>>>> are not compatible, because the two struct tags are different."
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with that?  Or is there something more to making two types
>>>> be incompatible?
>>>
>>> I don't recall the exact discussion and I wouldn't try to speak
>>> for Tim, but I suspect he was saying that the fact that the two
>>> struct tags are different is enough to know that the types are
>>> not compatible.  [...]
>>
>> Considering the circumstances, rather than focusing on what I
>> (may have) meant, it seems better to focus on what is true,
>> whether I meant it or not.
>
> Feel free to do so, rather than resurrecting a post from nearly a
> month ago to criticize me for what I chose to focus on

My comment wasn't meant as a criticism, but only a suggested
improvement.  I'm sorry if it came across differently.

Also the comment was not meant as a statement about you but about
the style of the posting.  It's about wording, not about you
personally.

> and adding nothing to the actual discussion.
>
> The discussion died out weeks ago.  Why would you resurrect it?

I had no intention of resurrecting a discussion.  I responded
because I had something to say.