Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }]
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:10:12 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vt9j4j$1rdm$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vt3d4g$2djqe$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt3iqh$2ka99$1@dont-email.me> <868qoaeezc.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vt3oeo$2oq3p$1@dont-email.me> <86mscqcpy1.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vt48go$35hh3$2@dont-email.me> <86iknecjz8.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vt4del$3a9sk$1@dont-email.me> <86o6x5at05.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vt712u$1m84p$1@dont-email.me> <20250409170901.947@kylheku.com>
 <vt88bk$2rv8r$1@dont-email.me> <87wmbs45oa.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vt8hdp$333f0$1@dont-email.me> <eFQJP.51897$j2D.28734@fx09.iad>
 <vt8n5k$385mm$1@dont-email.me> <vt9g3b$3v929$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 01:10:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd2082d654358406b52b51744c06eb0c";
	logging-data="60854"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19S720wR3XTZydq8bxTgYwM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p1x7EH8QN2ReutbGmIswOaCdE+Y=
In-Reply-To: <vt9g3b$3v929$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4929

On 10/04/2025 23:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 10.04.2025 17:12, bart wrote:
>> On 10/04/2025 15:33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 10/04/2025 12:28, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Someone, not anyone but the all-knowing Tim, said: "and those types
>>>>>> are not compatible, because the two struct tags are different."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you agree with that? Or is there something more to making two types
>>>>>> be incompatible?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall the exact discussion
>>>>
>>>> It stems from this, a reply from DB dated: "Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:50:56
>>>> +0200". (About half way down there is some quoted code of mine.)
>>>>
>>>> It concerned two struct types in different translations units, which
>>>> needed to be compatible for the test program to work corectly.
>>>>
>>>> I said they were compatible enough. David said they were entirely
>>>> compatible. Tim said "No they are not". Three different opinions.
>>>
>>> If you pretend not to understand the C standard, you can argue
>>> about it forever.
>>>
>>> It's been explained to you more than once, but really, just read
>>> the flippin standard and stop arguing.
>>
>> Fucking hell.
>>
>> Three people have said three different things. They can't all be right.
>>
>> But according to you, only one of them is wrong: me, even though the
>> other two have made exactly opposite claims!
>>
>> So to you it's not about who's right and who's wrong; you are just
>> CONSTANTLY having a go at me personally for reasons that are nothing to
>> do with the subject. That is persecution.
>>
>> In fact you don't really care about the topic (if you're even aware of
>> it). So, FUCK YOU.
>>
>> As for reading the standard, since that is this group's favourite
>> subject, then why does the group even exist? Since every possible
>> question can be answered there.
> 
> "I don't recall the exact discussion", and less the context of any
> formulation in any of the many posts. I also don't understand what
> your goal is. As I see it some posters tried to explain aspects of
> the topic to you, and they feel that you didn't understand it but
> are instead arguing just for the argument. Your post seems to show
> a desire that you want one (or two) of these posters to be wrong.
> It was suggested to you to refer to the standard document to clear
> the topic since there's obviously an unsolvable communication issue
> between the participants.
> 
> I basically do agree with your perception of this newsgroup and its
> purpose. But...
> 
> *If* you're really interested in the topic, and since all the other
> posters obviously gave up to continue explaining their sight to you,
> why don't you accept that suggestion and read the standard document
> to have clarity about the topic? [FYI; this was a rhetoric question.]

I've read the document, or the relevant section. According to that, DB 
was wrong, and TR was half-right.

Neither of them is willing to back down, while no one else is willing to 
back me up: KT will not say anything against his mates, and SL hasn't 
really got a clue about the topic, but he never misses a change to put 
the boot in when I'm already on the ground.



> Janis
> 
>> [...]
>