Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:06:07 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <875xrkct00.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <afdfe7c37c6ad739fd82c7ec0587b82e0963fce2@i2pn2.org>
	<va3n09$3nnl8$1@dont-email.me>
	<f693bfded5f8fec712a445d88ebe34419e0f7072@i2pn2.org>
	<vajt3u$2so1b$2@dont-email.me>
	<pan$bb5a3$9945b524$e24df187$e4a83bac@invalid.invalid>
	<86o75d1ktx.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87ed69crn5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<86ikvkzn8i.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 22:06:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1017e97994ee365b6a0a4b9b05fc05d0";
	logging-data="3779170"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7ZTt6S8zuRbOLnAXzMFdv"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:po7FUZ5H73BfJoO7xT/mXDf+KBo=
	sha1:XoQO+H4SLf6/MGNQpmxNX6TdGvM=
Bytes: 3059

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Not exactly.  There are things that can be done inside a
>>> statement-expression that are not available inside nested
>>> functions or lambdas.
>>
>> And you're not going to tell us what those things are.
>
> As a rule I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are
> too lazy to think for themselves.  I'm sorry to say that
> class includes you a lot more often than would appear to be
> warrented.

You seem not to be aware of how you come across.

Things like this make you appear arrogant.  You repeatedly make terse
and subtle statements (which are often, but not always, correct) that
would be trivial for you to expand on when you make them.  Instead, you
in effect assign homework to the rest of us.

It turns out that it's possible to jump out of a statement expression.
It was not obvious that that's permitted.  I very rarely use statement
expressions (among other things, they're non-standard), so I haven't
studied them in any detail.  But you expect me to think for myself and
infer that *obviously* they can be used that way.  I don't know how long
it would have taken me to figure that out if I had been motivated to
spend the time on it (it is mentioned in gcc's documentation) , but I'm
reasonably sure it would not have been worth the effort.  And it would
not have surprised me if gcc prohibited jumping out of a statement
expression.

I see from the rest of this thread that I'm not the only one who feels
this way.  Consider the possibility that the problem is not with
everyone else.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */