Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:22:08 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <87frhzye73.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vtnekn$1fogv$1@dont-email.me>
	<vto2mb$20c4n$1@dont-email.me> <vtu4i5$3hteg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtujko$3uida$1@dont-email.me> <vtvfop$rf2p$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtvto2$15otp$1@dont-email.me> <vu01k7$1bfv2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vu0720$1dva7$1@dont-email.me> <vu2hmg$3jn88$1@dont-email.me>
	<vu2mkc$3noft$1@dont-email.me> <vu5ig6$3catv$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vu5ol1$2h3r8$1@dont-email.me> <vu6bvn$3dsrl$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vu6iau$377r9$1@dont-email.me>
	<874iyh153g.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vu6nnv$3apt8$2@dont-email.me>
	<87sem1yoqm.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vu7rrt$dr1u$1@dont-email.me>
	<871ptjzymw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vu96ik$1j6ll$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 01:22:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="559a91cae6b172c7f978eee8629ad54d";
	logging-data="1603755"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+I/yTmU+M7tzrzLLXIElYi"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:63zbjt2TMqReMOeHqbsJCrQW7yQ=
	sha1:7VtN9QZHX9zrBgKZAzXhtsEyHyM=

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 22/04/2025 22:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 22/04/2025 02:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> For example, in my post to which you replied, I discussed at
>>>> some length how I like to split for loops if they're too long.
>>>> You snipped that discussion *and then* insinuated that I don't care
>>>> about complex loops written on one line.  Please stop doing things
>>>> like that.
>>>
>>> Well I care about it too, and I would write such things more sensibly
>>> as well. But so what? Most code I see tends to be badly
>>> formatted. For-headers are not split up unless they're long enough to
>>> overflow the line.
>>>
>>> It's something about the culture behind 'for' that encourages poor
>>> coding style.
>> Did you miss my point, or did you deliberately ignore it?
>> You snipped part of my text in which I discussed how I like to split
>> long for loops.  You then insinuated that I personally don't care
>> about complex loops written on one line, after I clearly demonstrated
>> that I do, and you hid the evidence.
>> I'm asking you to stop doing that kind of thing.
>> I'm making a point, not about technical disagreements, but about
>> you,
>> deliberately or otherwise, misrepresenting what I've written.
>> 
>
> I think my comments above stand.
>
> Of course, everybody here (me included) will claim their own code is
> cleanly laid out; it's everybody else's that is the problem.

You've dodged the point yet again.  I can only assume it's deliberate.

You have exhausted my patience.

Yes, your comments above stand.  You have no problem misrepresenting
what others have written, and you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge
that you have done so.  You have lied about me.  This is not merely
annoying.  It is offensive.

You appear to thrive on arguments.  You'll get no more from me.

I'll continue to read your posts for a while, but I do not intend
to reply unless I feel it is necessary to do so.  Please do not
take this as a challenge to say something so provocative you think
I'll need to reply.  An apology, or even an explanation, would be
welcome, but at this point it would not guarantee that I'll resume
talking to you.

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