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: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 22:00:49 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vj2d21$3aqf3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me> <vidd2a$18k9j$1@dont-email.me>
 <8734j9sj0f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vidnp3$1ovvm$2@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vihpjh$2hgg1$1@dont-email.me> <vihrh1$2hk5l$1@dont-email.me>
 <vii0jp$2jkd9$1@dont-email.me> <viifv8$2opi7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vik28b$390eg$1@dont-email.me> <vik8tc$3ang9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vikjff$3dgvc$1@dont-email.me> <viku00$3gamg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vil0qc$3fqqa$3@dont-email.me> <vil82t$3ie9o$2@dont-email.me>
 <vila9j$3j4dg$1@dont-email.me> <vin4su$49a6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vin95m$5da6$1@dont-email.me> <vinh3h$7ppb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vinjf8$8jur$1@dont-email.me> <vip5rf$p44n$1@dont-email.me>
 <viprao$umjj$1@dont-email.me> <viqfk9$13esp$1@dont-email.me>
 <viqhmn$131h8$3@dont-email.me> <visbmp$1ks59$1@dont-email.me>
 <visgs7$1mgdb$1@dont-email.me> <viv5ve$2dqir$1@dont-email.me>
 <vivggi$2gkth$1@dont-email.me> <vj1r8n$35lal$1@dont-email.me>
 <vj1uge$36ugq$1@dont-email.me> <vj22ce$37g4b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vj263c$396ln$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2024 22:00:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d978002c106e9d0b3252c03f89413c6";
	logging-data="3500515"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fl/QevMtQm8lfO0IkJtbRcMm4LeIlZL8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C4ADeLISouyotPiUKsn8g1ok0Wo=
In-Reply-To: <vj263c$396ln$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3292

On 07/12/2024 20:02, Bart wrote:
> On 07/12/2024 17:58, David Brown wrote:
>> On 07/12/2024 17:52, Bart wrote:
> 
>>>     f ( ) ;
>>>     f ( x , y , z ) ;
>>>     ++ p . x ;
>>>     q = ( void ) p ;
>>>     label :
>>>     f ( x , y , z ) ;
>>>     a [ i + 1 ] ;
>>>
>>
>> That is just differently bad from "f(x,y,z);" and "q=(void*)p;".  Too 
>> much space is bad spacing,
> 
> You specifically praised Forth for requiring spaces between tokens, 
> which is exactly what this code has.

The languages are not the same - they have different syntaxes.  Forth 
requires good spacing for Forth.  C does not require good spacing for C. 
  I think that's a shame - I think a lot of C code would be easier to 
read if spaces were required in certain parts of the syntax (but not 
/everywhere/).  Of course I don't think people could agree enough on 
/where/ the spaces should go in order to standardise something like 
that.  But for example, a rule that required a space after the comma 
between function arguments and parameters would be a big step forward in 
legibility of some people's code.

<snip purely subjective opinion on unrealistic code>

(And if you want to snip my purely subjective opinion on spacing, I 
won't feel offended.)