Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: transpiling to low level C
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 15:30:30 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <87v7vbwx9l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <vjlh19$8j4k$1@dont-email.me>
	<vjn9g5$n0vl$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vjnhsq$oh1f$1@dont-email.me> <vjnq5s$pubt$1@dont-email.me>
	<vjpn29$17jub$1@dont-email.me> <86ikrdg6yq.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vk78it$77aa$1@dont-email.me> <871pxzyf4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 16:30:32 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83bd2f31ed18fb672f5c0d53981e570d";
	logging-data="724802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qq3PmvNOFgqkTqxLsTYCMgYfbhRsJVJI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v1IQCjzlKAuk97ndBZoN+21VO00=
	sha1:xntjKg5S9oDQ0829oeQPwAS5ktg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.e0c206e5d0b9785b758c.20241222153030GMT.87v7vbwx9l.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 2845

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via goto.
>>>>
>>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is*
>>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and
>>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions.
>>> 
>>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly
>>> necessary either.
>>
>> No? - Can you give an example of your statement?
>
> I don't want to speak for Tim, but as far as I am concerned, it all
> boils down to what you take to be a model of (effective) computation.
> In some purely theoretical sense, models like the pure lambda calculus
> and combinator calculus are "complete" and they have no specific
> conditional "branches".
>
> Going into detail (such as examples of making a "choice" in pure lambda
> calculus) are way off topic here.
>
> This is exactly what comp.theory should be used for, so I will cross
> post there and set the followup-to header.  comp.theory has been trashed
> by cranks but maybe a topical post will help it a but.

I see from a post I had not read before replying that Tim's point was
very much focused on C.  Given that theory is off topic here (and
comp.theory is a mess) there is probably no point in trying to
discussing the more general point.

-- 
Ben.