Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 01:01:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <875xr0ifr7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <vab101$3er$1@reader1.panix.com> <871q27weeh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<20240829083200.195@kylheku.com> <87v7zjuyd8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<20240829084851.962@kylheku.com> <87mskvuxe9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vaq9tu$1te8$1@dont-email.me> <vbci8r$1c9e8$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vbcs65$eabn$1@dont-email.me> <vbekut$1kd24$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vbepcb$q6p2$1@dont-email.me> <vbgb5q$1ruv8$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vbhbbb$1blt4$1@dont-email.me> <87tteqktr8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vbkjqk$201ms$1@dont-email.me> <87ttenk2nq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vbps3c$31s4d$1@dont-email.me> <875xr3jaz0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vbro72$3gqes$1@dont-email.me> <87zfodix68.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vbtd93$3sknf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 02:01:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b8e7daafe9c4d62f654f00a3ff91b56f";
	logging-data="525473"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OlCfJoPSowOjjbOaMOAeLWQSV+2jOEFY="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QMzeAlIWf76ORdLsSCHScGkzmRE=
	sha1:kym3v+f6eqbiTSKShSZV0MAFD64=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7a9895eeaa9aabe8f011.20240913010100BST.875xr0ifr7.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 5305

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 12/09/2024 00:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 11/09/2024 01:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> And yes I'm still committed to that symmetry. I'ved used it for countless
>>>>> language implementations. C is little different other than it has a
>>>>> 700-page standard that suggests a recommended model of how it's supposed to
>>>>> work.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't really use that to bash me about the head with and maintain that
>>>>> all my ideas about language implementation are wrong because C views
>>>>> assignment in its own idiosyncratic manner.
>>>> I don't want to bash you about the head, but what C says about
>>>> assignment has /always/ been the point, and your implementation of C
>>>> will be wrong if you don't follow the rules about C's assignments.  You
>>>> /know/ the LH and RH side of a C assignment have different constraints
>>>> (you have said so yourself) yet you persist in defending your original
>>>> claim that what is needed on the two sides "is exactly the same".
>>>
>>> I've listed the aspects that I said are the same.
>> And you've stated that there are differences but of course you haven't
>> listed them (as far as I can tell).
>> 
>>> That is, if something is a legal LHS term, then its syntax, and its type,
>>> are identical to that term appearing on the RHS.
>> And you have /not/ stated, though you know it perfectly well, that the
>> reverse does /not/ apply -- that many "legal" RHS expressions can't
>> appear, legally, on the LHS.
>
> Clearly all RHSs can't appear on the left; this is OK:
>
>    A = A + A + A + A;
>
> but not:
>
>    A + A + A + A = A;

The example I used all those posts ago was A=3 vs 3=A;

> As for differences, there is my AST for A = B:
>
>   i32-- 1 assign:
>   i32-- - 1 name: a
>   i32-- - 2 name: b
>
> Same node type, same type. What are the differences?

You clearly know that what is required on each side is different: the LH
side must be a modifiable lvalue, the RH side need not be.

>>> Or people simply can't grasp what I'm saying. I've given a million
>>> examples of identical LHSs and RHSs,
>> But your mistake is not that there are not millions of identical
>> (looking) LH sides and RH sides.  No one disputes that.  But in reply to
>> my statement that what is /required/ on both sides is not the same, you
>> said "I would argue that it is exactly the same".
>
> I think you're still not getting it. In C you write:
>
>   A = B
>
> to assign simple value types. Or you write B = A the other way around.

I get that.  What is it that you think I don't get?  What have I said
that you actually disagree with?  You know perfectly well the what is
required on the two sides is not exactly the same.  3=A is not permitted
but A=3 is yet you keep posting in support of the notion that what is
required on both sides is exactly the same.

> You write A as A, B as B no matter which side it is.
>
> In BLISS which you claim to be more symmetric, you have to write:
>
>   A = .B
>
> for the same operation (copy B's value into A), or B = .A for the other way
> around.

Is there anything I've said about BLISS that you did not understand?  Is
there anything I said about BLISS that you think is wrong (I am no an
expert)?  I ask because you have mysteriously cut what I /actually/ said
about BLISS (I hope you understood my explanation) and instead made up
some claim that I don't think I have made.  If you want to dispute
something, quote me and say what you think is wrong or incomprehensible.

-- 
Ben.