Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@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 15:55:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v2qur9$2g7fr$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <877cfj2dbh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 22:55:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="853a48eea7a3e841565c364baea8e5bf";
	logging-data="2629115"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SfCndGuERD/jR6zqmQz+q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4sVPKCYENmLTB8GuCiBTUXH921o=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <877cfj2dbh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Bytes: 3283

On 5/24/2024 2:57 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 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 defender of truth, justice and honesty.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer