Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: relearning C: why does an in-place change to a char* segfault?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:05:11 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <86ed6po09k.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <IoGcndcJ1Zm83zb7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v8fhhl$232oi$1@dont-email.me> <v8fn2u$243nb$1@dont-email.me> <87jzh0gdru.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v8gte2$2ceis$2@dont-email.me> <20240801174256.890@kylheku.com> <v8i9o8$2oof8$1@dont-email.me> <v8j808$2us0r$1@dont-email.me> <864j7oszhu.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v9if6v$fs3n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 01:05:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7281b2582241b74932977c55e2504530";
	logging-data="1184676"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tPQUUvBFuDTq4IS9DzcYKvCfnj5i5G6M="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NbnLAbiRsHWhj3pvWGuZ4YqIccU=
	sha1:UqxAP4g6wfML/Zv6h08C3fToyE4=
Bytes: 2483

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>
>>> Just as 1 is an integer literal whose value cannot be modified,
>>> [...]
>>
>> The C language doesn't have integer literals.  C has string
>> literals, and compound literals, and it has integer constants.
>> But C does not have integer literals.
>
> True, but C++ does, and it means the same thing by "integer literal"
> that C means by "integer constant".

This is comp.lang.c, not comp.lang.c++.  You flog Bart for using
C-standard-defined terms wrongly.  This case is no different.

> C doesn't define the term "integer
> literal" with any conflicting meaning, and my use of the C++ terminology
> allowed me to make the parallel with string literals clearer, so I don't
> see any particular problem with my choice of words.

In this case you are in the wrong.  Just be a man and admit it.  Oh, I
forgot, your rhetorical religion doesn't allow you to admit any
linguistic imperfection, so you try to sleaze your way to a different
subject so you can continue to argue.