Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_technology_discussion_=E2=86=92_does_the_world_need?=
 =?UTF-8?B?IGEgIm5ldyIgQyA/?=
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:46:41 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <v6rmlh$33g76$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <877cdur1z9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6joi4$1epoj$1@dont-email.me> <871q42qy33.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6k6i0$1h4d3$1@dont-email.me> <87ed82p28y.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6m03l$1tf05$1@dont-email.me> <87r0c1nzjj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6m716$1urj4$1@dont-email.me> <86ikxd8czu.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v6mggd$20g3f$1@dont-email.me> <20240710213910.00000afd@yahoo.com>
 <v6mm02$21cpb$1@dont-email.me> <865xtc87yo.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v6ol14$2fdrj$1@dont-email.me> <87msmnu5e3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <v6pdcf$2jijk$1@dont-email.me> <87frsfu0yp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <v6pfo3$2jijk$2@dont-email.me> <v6qgbt$2t6p7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6r2im$30a9n$1@dont-email.me> <871q3ytxy3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:46:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4832b035291dc54233b2e6d08cbaa6a3";
	logging-data="3260646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UIMZuaMGFpCtY4Opn4oOVrRidL/1fGBs="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:53OJl9kau043g7PhiBBPlw61Rwk=
In-Reply-To: <871q3ytxy3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/12/24 11:46, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> KT has chosen not to answer, and now you are evading it too. I'm
>> asking why this:
>>
>>      void F(int* B) {}
>>
>> is 'not C' according to KT.
> 
> I never said that's "not C".  It is in fact a perfectly valid function
> definition.  And it's not the question you originally asked.

In your message dated 2024-07-11 13:29 -0700, you wrote:
>> The language could insist that you write:
> 
>    void F(int* B) {}
> 
> But it doesn't.  Why should we waste time in comp.lang.c explaining how
> C *could* have been defined?  It's hard enough to explain how it
> actually is defined, especially with your contributions.
>
>> This way, it is far clearer that a pointer is being passed, and 'pass
>> by value' now makes more sense. The way B will be used is now
>> consistent with the same declaration anywhere else.
> 
> But that's not C.

So you did say that something is not C, Bart has merely misidentified
what it is. "void F(int*B)" is C, and you never denied that it was.
Insisting that you write "void F(int*B)" - in other words, disallowing
"void F(int B[20])" - is not C, and that's you did say.