Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 12:57:06 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <877cfj2dbh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <v2ns85$1rd65$1@dont-email.me>
	<cone.1716501172.972762.219193.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
	<v2oeuu$1urqv$1@dont-email.me>
	<cone.1716513008.662818.236297.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
	<v2oq1p$24966$1@dont-email.me>
	<cone.1716550962.2017.287830.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 21:57:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9bf1a2728fa7020763691602348055f5";
	logging-data="2610781"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vTleulAvdTpZLIgYCf5in"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8uMGayKI9Lr+wU2g7nraLuREC8o=
	sha1:66xZt1EfQDd7ItbIbiqqlCzAkf8=
Bytes: 2979

Sam <sam@email-scan.com> writes:
> olcott writes:
>
>>>
>>> As I already explained, it's syntactically invalid C, that no self-
>>> respecting C compiler will accept as well-formed code.
>>>
>>
>> Fibber !
>>
>> On 5/20/2024 9:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> > The code as presented is a valid C *translation unit*, but it is
>> > not a valid *program*, and it has no behavior.
>> >
>
> Please stop accusing Mr. Thompson. He's only telling you the truth:
> the shown code "is not a valid *program*". Which part of that you did
> not understand? If you don't believe me, just ask Keith Thompson.

I don't read what olcott posts to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++, but it
appears that he was accusing you, Sam, not me.  (I have no reason to
think you're lying, but I do think you statement is either incorrect or
unclear.)

> That should be the last word on this: your code is not a valid
> program. Thank you for playing. You can go home now.

Sam, your claim that it's "syntactically invalid C" is incorrect, unless
you're quibbling about the line numbers that are obviously not intended
to be part of the code.

Are the line numbers the reason you say it's syntactically invalid?

The code olcott posted, with the line numbers removed, is syntactically
valid C.  It is not a complete program due to the lack of a definition
for one of the functions.  It could be part of a complete program (one
about which, as it happens, I don't care).

Sam, are you trolling?  If you're trolling olcott, I don't care, but
please don't do it in comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++.

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