| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vm2l6o$1n8gc$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: So You Think You Can Const? Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:08:40 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 21 Message-ID: <vm2l6o$1n8gc$3@dont-email.me> References: <vljvh3$27msl$1@dont-email.me> <20250107130809.661@kylheku.com> <vlm0hf$2dkpd$1@dont-email.me> <87a5c15ob0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vlm7o4$2dkpd$4@dont-email.me> <vlm8r6$2dkpd$5@dont-email.me> <87ldvk4wu7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vlnrib$2dkpc$5@dont-email.me> <875xmn4lmy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vm1foe$2s6l0$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vm1gm5$ht1i$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:08:40 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="515b9a709d729126ae8355fc1ec2f38f"; logging-data="1810956"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FacjdnZTu00otppxIHrveisVU/6sdnzU=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:6YKcXwHA0lhDVAAmuA3n8VgnerE= In-Reply-To: <vm1gm5$ht1i$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2155 On 12/01/2025 23:45, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On 12/01/2025 23:29, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes: > >>> I would be happy for you to expand on why you say that. >> >> Julio did not want to give his reasons, > > I did give reasons, plenty actually: some people just cannot but keep > pretending. > Could you try posting them again? I've looked through your posts here again, and I haven't seen any clear justification for why you think Ben's alternative structure for the code is "more error-prone". Waldek and I have both given some (very similar) reasons for why /we/ can see the style as potentially error-prone, but we'd like to hear what /your/ reasons are.