Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 10:34:27 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <vbro72$3gqes$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vab101$3er$1@reader1.panix.com> <875xrkxlgo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vapitn$3u1ub$1@dont-email.me> <87o75bwlp8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vaps06$3vg8l$1@dont-email.me> <871q27weeh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <20240829083200.195@kylheku.com> <87v7zjuyd8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <20240829084851.962@kylheku.com> <87mskvuxe9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vaq9tu$1te8$1@dont-email.me> <vbci8r$1c9e8$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vbcs65$eabn$1@dont-email.me> <vbekut$1kd24$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vbepcb$q6p2$1@dont-email.me> <vbgb5q$1ruv8$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vbhbbb$1blt4$1@dont-email.me> <87tteqktr8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vbkjqk$201ms$1@dont-email.me> <87ttenk2nq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vbps3c$31s4d$1@dont-email.me> <875xr3jaz0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:34:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b0e60afe09774e8e7cecec025f09afc9";
	logging-data="3697116"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+niNMrVvYNFB11zLAJ6hxQ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cfu4eoSCdROixfXe0pcgjc1wjBE=
In-Reply-To: <875xr3jaz0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3569

On 11/09/2024 01:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
>> And yes I'm still committed to that symmetry. I'ved used it for countless
>> language implementations. C is little different other than it has a
>> 700-page standard that suggests a recommended model of how it's supposed to
>> work.
>>
>> You can't really use that to bash me about the head with and maintain that
>> all my ideas about language implementation are wrong because C views
>> assignment in its own idiosyncratic manner.
> 
> I don't want to bash you about the head, but what C says about
> assignment has /always/ been the point, and your implementation of C
> will be wrong if you don't follow the rules about C's assignments.  You
> /know/ the LH and RH side of a C assignment have different constraints
> (you have said so yourself) yet you persist in defending your original
> claim that what is needed on the two sides "is exactly the same".

I've listed the aspects that I said are the same.

That is, if something is a legal LHS term, then its syntax, and its 
type, are identical to that term appearing on the RHS.

(And by its type, I mean its base type. So given 'int a,b; a=b;', I'm 
talking about 'int' not 'int*'.)

There can additionally be similarities within internal representations.


> Tim suggests that there is communication failure here -- that you have
> not expressed what you mean clearly enough.  That may be so, but I can't
> see how to interpret what you've written in any other way.

Or people simply can't grasp what I'm saying. I've given a million 
examples of identical LHSs and RHSs, and they insist on saying they're 
asymmmetric (while also insisting that it's the A=.A of BLISS that has 
true symmetry!).

I acknowledge that LHSs are written and RHSs are read (and also that, 
while A=A has true reflective symmetry, B=B doesn't, if that's what 
bothers some).