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: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:19:54 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <vjcvlq$1n3n1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me> <viaqh0$nm7q$1@dont-email.me>
 <877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viasv4$nm7q$2@dont-email.me>
 <vibr1l$vvjf$1@dont-email.me> <vic73f$1205f$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com> <vicfra$13nl4$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com> <vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me>
 <vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me> <vifcll$1q9rj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vifiib$1s07p$1@dont-email.me> <87ldwx10gv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vimtt4$27vv$1@dont-email.me> <86ser1kgp5.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vit69t$1qfgg$1@dont-email.me> <87ldwtzlc0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vitjgg$1tukq$2@dont-email.me> <vj1bss$325uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vj1h4i$335q1$2@dont-email.me> <vj1mhi$34p7h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vj1prj$35je4$1@dont-email.me> <vj7dup$he7i$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrnvlik4j.ns4.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> <vjcens$1kcos$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjcfnc$1kfcq$1@dont-email.me> <vjcftu$1kk6l$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjchk5$1kmm9$1@dont-email.me> <vjctmp$1n22j$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:19:54 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="290934312172764f7b8d04cf684db75b";
	logging-data="1806049"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dEYOoJHKNDT3d8MkhIi8E"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ck+ayrr+pMn5/SaSNJFKSDgXuzk=
In-Reply-To: <vjctmp$1n22j$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6658

On 11/12/2024 20:46, David Brown wrote:
> On 11/12/2024 18:20, bart wrote:
>> On 11/12/2024 16:51, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 11.12.2024 17:47, David Brown wrote:

>>>> Most C coding standards and style guides make that requirement
>>>> - not because the C compiler sees it as ambiguous, but because humans
>>>> often do.  (Or they misinterpret it.)
>>>
>>> Yes, true. (We had that in our standards, too.)
>>
>> So here you finally acknowledge there may be ambiguity from a human 
>> perspective.
> 
> I don't think anyone has ever disagreed that you can write "if" 
> statements with "else" in C in a way that is confusing or unclear to 
> human readers.  (But it still has fixed and unambiguous meaning to the 
> compiler.)
> 
> Equally, of course, it is possible to write them in a way that is not 
> confusing or unclear at all.
> 
> But there is no ambiguity in the language itself - only possible 
> confusions from the way the language could be used.  (And since the 
> language is well defined here, it doesn't make sense to call it an 
> ambiguity at all, even "from a human perspective".  Call it unclear, 
> confusing, or deceptive code if you like.)
> 
> I don't see that anyone has changed their position on this.
> 
>>
>> But when I try to make that very point, it's me making up unrealistic 
>> examples; I'm being deliberately obtuse; I clearly find things 
>> confusing that no one else has a problem with; or you make snarky 
>> comments like this:
>>
> 
> Sure.
> 
> We all know it is possible to write unclear and confusing C code. 
> There's a whole competition devoted to it!
> 
> But we also all know that most C programmers - like programmers of any 
> other language - usually avoid writing code they find unclear.  (Clarity 
> is quite subjective - a solid proportion of programmers will agree 
> roughly on a set of guidelines, but there will be outliers with very 
> different positions.  This is independent of language.)
> 
> 
>> "I mean, if you get confused by an unambiguous syntaxes already,
>> what do you think happens with people if they have to program
>> in or understand an ambiguous language!"
>>
>> It's astonishing how I have to fight across a dozen posts to back up 
>> my point of view (you even specifically said you didn't recognise my 
>> point).
>>
>> And yet here: somebody makes that very same point, and you merely say:
>>
>> "Yes, true."
>>
>> It really is extraordinary.
>>
> 
> It was a totally different point.  It is extraordinary that you can't 
> see that.
> 
> You claimed the language and its grammar was ambiguous and confusing. It 
> is not.

I don't think so. My main example which followed on from semicolons was 
about 'do while'. I said that, even though the C grammar makes it work, 
that it was fragile: adding or removing a semicolon could radically 
change the meaning.

This also comes up with 'while (cond); {...}'.

Here is what I said in one post:

BC:
 >Why is it not possible for to acknowledge that some language design 
 >patterns may not be as obvious as others?

 >According to you, even if some construct can be determined to be 
 >unambiguous in some convoluted grammar, then it must also be 100% 
 >obvious to any human reader?

This is little different from your remark here:  "...not because the C 
compiler sees it as ambiguous, but because humans often do.  (Or they 
misinterpret it.)"

But this was JP's reply:

JP:
 > Who said that? - Again you make up things just for your argument.
 >
 > An unambiguous grammar is something quite essential; how would you
 > parse code if it were ambiguous?
 >
 > To what ([hypothetical] "some") grammar are you referring to?
 >
 > If you mean the "C" grammar; what, concretely, you find to be
 > "convoluted"?
 >
 > You postulate it as if the grammar were convoluted; more likely
 > it's just your personal problem with understanding formal syntax.
 >
 > No one said, that everything is "100% obvious". An unambiguous
 > grammar is a precondition for for an understanding, though.
 >
 > If you'd have your excerpts and samples formatted in a common
 > (non-lunatic) way then it should have been "100% obvious" even
 > to you.

It then went on:

BC:
 >Is it just to avoid admitting that I might have a point?

JP:
 >>(Yet you haven't had one.)

A totally different attitude, dripping with condescension and contempt, 
compared to the "Yes, true" that you got.

He simply cannot admit that I could have a valid point; he must ALWAYS 
turn it around and make it about me personally.

Is it any wonder that I respond with some heat?