Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 22:55:06 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <86frifb5tx.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <20250407210248.00006457@yahoo.com> <vt15lq$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> <20250410092409.825@kylheku.com> <vt9334$3hhr8$1@dont-email.me> <86jz7rbh2z.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87o6x3tky6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 07:55:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="71ab0539a1cf710e3caa6c34edacc1d7";
	logging-data="887008"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vJT1rjE3z0jQvI50u7OY297GKRXRbRrE="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ssvRV1OQf4VV65XhNiovGeV1peQ=
	sha1:H3ERO/d1cTOqFD2VuPvO/aruJ2E=
Bytes: 3096

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

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>> [... compatibility of struct types ...]
>>
>>> The example was like this:
>>>
>>> module A:     typedef struct point {float a; float b;} Point;
>>>
>>> module B:     typedef float length;
>>>               typedef struct _tag {length x, y;} vector;
>>>
>>> David Brown said:  "The two types are entirely compatible."
>>>
>>> I said:            "Are they?"
>>>
>>> Tim Rentsch said:  "No, they are not."
>>
>> I withdraw my earlier statement.  Please leave me out of any
>> future discussion of the subject.
>
> Do you mean that your earlier statement was incorrect (i.e., that
> the types are compatible), or do you merely wish to pretend you
> never said anything without taking a position on whether they're
> compatible, or do you refuse to say?

I am specifically _not_ saying either that my earlier statement
was right or that my earlier statement was wrong.  My hope is
that henceforth people will act as though the statement never
entered the discussion.  Does that clarify the matter for you?

> Don't worry, I'm not planning to start or participate in a
> lengthy discussion on your statement (that never turns out well).
> I'm inviting you to clarify if you choose to do so.  [...]

I appreciate the invitation and have made an earnest effort
to accommodate it.