Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Sam <sam@email-scan.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in
         recursive =?UTF-8?Q?simulation=3F?=
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 13:27:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <cone.1716571626.52742.329279.1004@monster.email-scan.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> <v2q32c$2b3fj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 19:27:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="24eb11938b9aceec7c4928d965d98426";
	logging-data="2559113"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/9MALsghkCSR8eKGBRae2d"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/p63+A9TfUSMeXydL0Ox0eHyCzM=
X-Mailer: https://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Shameless-Plug: https://github.com/svarshavchik
Bytes: 2483

olcott writes:

> On 5/23/2024 8:10 PM, Sam wrote:
>> olcott writes:
>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the worst chunk of code I've seen in at least fifteen years. It  
>>>> shows a complete lack of understanding of fundamental principles of C and  
>>>> C++.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the computer science of the Peter Linz halting
>>> problem proof translated into C. This too is a template:
>>
>> It's completely wrong. It suffers from a fundamental flaw of using an  
>> inverse logical loop that makes its boolean logic produce an irrational  
>> identity matrix.
>>
>> The shown code is worthless. It'll never work. Try again, from step 1. Start  
>> with the K&R book, beginning with Chapter 1.
>>
>>> Can we please get back to the C or do you really want
>>> to stay off topic?
>>
>> As I already explained, it's syntactically invalid C, that no
>
> It is not syntactically invalid C, why lie about this?

Of course it is syntactically-invalid. No self-respecting C or C++ compiler  
will accept the shown code, cut/pasted exactly as shown. Line numbers have  
never been a part of either C or C++.

When was the last time you successfully compiled C or C++ code?