Path: ...!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 12:32:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <vtaukr$1dp7m$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>
 <vt9j4j$1rdm$2@dont-email.me> <vtaj0f$11tb7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 13:32:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd2082d654358406b52b51744c06eb0c";
	logging-data="1500406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zxH7654M5jWA6mDzfqqM1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SkE0ZmnMkTG/2aDHWQcq2Xkm8qw=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vtaj0f$11tb7$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3960

On 11/04/2025 09:14, David Brown wrote:
> On 11/04/2025 01:10, bart wrote:
>> On 10/04/2025 23:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> *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 had certainly given up and moved on.
> 
>> I've read the document, or the relevant section. 
> 
> Finally!  Now you too can move on.
> 
>> According to that, DB was wrong, and TR was half-right.
>>
> 
> Yes, it seems I was inaccurate about the compatibility - the names of 
> the struct and fields need to match across translation units, not just 
> the types of the fields.  That's why it is important that /you/ read the 
> standard.

But no one, absolutely no one, said outright that you were wrong. Only 
Keith eventually agreed that one of you (and Tim) was right, but didn't 
care who, and the next day admitted that one of you might be wrong, but 
still didn't want to commit himself as to who it might be.

On the other hand, I was the only one not to make a bold claim one way 
or another (I said types were compatible enough for my test to work), 
but Keith had no hesitation in telling me I was 100% wrong!

That is what is very worrying to me, and makes this a toxic environment 
(see my last post here where I remark on the contrast with how KT treats 
me and how he treats TR.)

> Tim was, as usual in these matters, entirely correct as far as I can 
> see.  I don't see how he could be considered "half-right" here.  Tim has 
> a communication style that some people find grating (to put it mildly), 
> but there is no question that his knowledge of the C standards is 
> outstanding.

I said half-right because as he put it, it sounded as though 
compatibility depended entirely on struct tags.

(Which I then proceeded to put to the test with examples where there 
were no tags, and those where the tags were the same (but defined in 
different scopes). But these were examples where both structs were 
visible to the compiler.

In my original example, the compiler could only see one at a time, as 
they were in different translation units.)