C Standard Regarding Null Pointer Dereferencing

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

If I say "So-and-so claims such-and-such," that very statement is a
claim just as much as so-and-so's claim of such-and-such.

Oh. Sounds a bit recursive ....

If one perceives a negative connotation, I find it likely that it is
due to their conditioning; sometimes cultural, sometimes personal.
Experiences cause conditioning. A connotation isn't explicit, so
where does it come from?: A conditioned voice in the reader's head.
It says (very quickly), "I recognize that word in this context. It
implies that there is doubt about the truth of what so-and-so stated."

I'd rather not drop the plain English "claims to have" from my typing
because some people associate such with doubt-casting, but I have
enough respect for others to do so.

Well, whatever. To me it still sounds like you somehow think
that only the, hm, "denotative meanings" [*] of words count, as
opposed to their "connotative meanings", and that seems strange
to me, and if you do think that I don't agree, but I don't think
anything good will come of further discussion here.

[*] Terms that I, um, invented. No idea whether a linguist would
recognize them as valid, but maybe my meaning is clear enough.

I'm mildly curious about whether there are others for whom "claims
to be" has no negative connotations. That might be a question for
alt.usage.english, another group I sort of follow, hm, ....

No, I didn't mean that. You are correct; none was meant. But the
intention is not accessible to you, it belongs to the author and only
the author knows the truth of their intent. A point that might or
might not be worth taking away is that if we have some overlap in our
frames of reference, we can hopefully communicate more effectively.
"We are typing to one another" != "Someone is calling someone else
wordy or a liar." My impression from your posts is that you agree.

Well, I do agree that no one but the writer can really claim to
know exactly what he or she meant. I also agree that more overlap
in frames of reference improves the odds of clear communication,
and that it's good when people can recognize the limitations of
a text-only medium and try to avoid misunderstandings.

Sometimes we even learn from each other, such that the frames of
reference overlap more. Maybe that has happened a bit here.

Of course, sometimes when people are typing at each other, one
of them *IS* calling the other one wordy or a liar. But maybe
a level-headed person tries to keep in mind that words can have
different interpretations ....

One thing that can help a great deal is to recognize situations
in which replying to a post right away is *not* a good idea, and
set it aside for later. But the temptation to reply in anger is
sometimes strong, and I suppose depending on tools it might be
difficult to set something aside for later. My two cents' worth!

 

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

You might have missed a post.

More than possible! I've tried to at least skim all the posts
in this thread, but there have been a lot of them ....

It was apparently July 25th, 2010 at
5:42 pm, whatever that means.

Message ID is probably a more-unambiguous identifier, and one
that at least on good days you can use to find a message in
Google's archives (from the "advanced search" page). But if
I look in my saved copies of posts for something by you with
a time of something:42 [*], I find the post I think you mean,
the one with message ID

<fb3b6110-f3dc-4115-a366-61eb8932aff9@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>

[*] "25 Jul 2010 14:42:29 -0700 (PDT)" is what it shows. Not
sure I completely understand how to interpret that.

Well read what it says again, if you'd enjoy. Read the
aforementioned, possibly-missed post, if you'd enjoy.

"If you'd enjoy" .... hm, unfamiliar idiom, where I'd write
"if you like" .... but I digress.

Anyway, yeah, okay, I think I'm not interested in pursuing this
discussion further -- it seems to be getting into pointless
wrangling about who said what and who's responsible for the
apparent miscommunication. Looking back over some posts, I
think you've tried to clear things up, and I think the other
parties could have made a bit more effort to meet you halfway,
but -- whatever.

[ snip ]

It's really not easy to type and
review inside the 11-row box that Google gives for posting via a web
page interface.

*11-ROW BOX*!!?? Good heavens, it (the interface) may be even
worse than I'd have thought. You know, much as I appreciate
having someone provide for free an archive of Usenet posts,
the posting interface seems to leave a lot to be desired.

But that's a whole other rant ....

[ snip ]

 

[Seebs]

But my, what a lot of "I really want to reply to this!" stuff
there's been in recent posts.

No one disputes that he is an *effective* troll. He has a truly
astounding grasp of how to get something *almost* totally wrong, with
just enough hints of logical connectivity to make it look as though
there is some point in argumentation.

Seriously, just plonk him and move on. It's not going to get anywhere;
people have been trying to argue with the guy for ten or twenty years,
and it's gotten nowhere. The more you argue, the more he has to believe
crazy stuff not to feel like he's lost a point, so all it does is make
him even more extreme.

-s

 

[Nick Keighley]

*11-ROW BOX*!!??  Good heavens, it (the interface) may be even
worse than I'd have thought.  You know, much as I appreciate
having someone provide for free an archive of Usenet posts,
the posting interface seems to leave a lot to be desired.

But that's a whole other rant ....

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

yup that's the default size. But if you resize the window...
....you get 31 lines. Not massive but quite adequate to compose a
usenet post in.

I use explorer and if I move the cursor into the area just below the
text window the cursor changes to a four-way arrow. Hold down the
right mouse button and drag the window downwards.

DON'T resize the pane holding the tree view it seems to eat your
machine.

 

[Nick Keighley]

are you (Shao Miller) a native english speaker? I believe Seebs is
American, I'm English. Both of us find "X claims that..." to be
mildly.... if not rude... it indicates a doubt about the speaker's
veracity. Why not "X says that...". The very fact that you didn't use
the more neutral term is an implicit... slight. (I'm trying to pick my
words carefully!)

Oh.  Sounds a bit recursive ....

again if you're a native english speaker then this is a reasonable
view to hold (though I'd say it was you that had the odd cultural
backgound!), if you aren't then I'll say you had a tin ear for
english.

english has a lot of words that almost mean the same thing. There's a
reason they /almost/ mean the same thing.


I think you'd be better rethinking that, unless your local version of
english uses it heavily

Well, whatever.  To me it still sounds like you somehow think
that only the, hm, "denotative meanings" [*] of words count, as
opposed to their "connotative meanings", and that seems strange
to me, and if you do think that I don't agree, but I don't think
anything good will come of further discussion here.

[*] Terms that I, um, invented.  No idea whether a linguist would
recognize them as valid, but maybe my meaning is clear enough.

I'm mildly curious about whether there are others for whom "claims
to be" has no negative connotations.  That might be a question for
alt.usage.english, another group I sort of follow, hm, ....

"claims" definitely implies doubt to me. Words don't just have a
simple meaning the also carry around a "cloud" of implicit meanings.

If someone uses the term "evolutionist" they don't just mean "a
biologist who studies evolutionary biology" they tend to mean "person
who foolishly believes in the myth of evolution" "an atheist" and
probably a deluded or wicked person. I also conclude that the speaker
likely holds opinions about the bible that are in the main only held
in the United States.

[PLEASE don't use this example as the trigger to a political/religious
debate]

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

are you (Shao Miller) a native english speaker? I believe Seebs is
American, I'm English. Both of us find "X claims that..." to be
mildly.... if not rude... it indicates a doubt about the speaker's
veracity.

TI don't think that's quite right. There is no slight at all if the
domain of discourse is one of opinion to start with. "Nick claims that
red ties are better than blue ones" is not at all rude, but "Nick claims
he knows C" is more than slightly rude.

<snip>

 

[Seebs]

And this, Shao, is why I told you about Gricean Maxims, so you could
understand how many connotations are NOT related to any conditioning
at all. And that you still haven't done it is why you're still plonked;
I didn't plonk you for being wrong, but for being unwilling to learn.

This is not, in fact, how it works.

But more importantly: *EVEN IF THIS WERE SO*, it would still mean you'd
need to be aware of that meaning. If your goal is to communicate with
other people, you MUST take into account how they will understand you.

Dragging this back on topic: This is the same as the problem we had
originally with all this stuff about null pointers. You have to understand
what the compiler understands your code to mean; it doesn't matter whether
you agree with it, for the most part. If you want to communicate, you
have to pay attention to how messages are interpreted, not just how you
intended them.

Well, whatever. To me it still sounds like you somehow think
that only the, hm, "denotative meanings" [*] of words count, as
opposed to their "connotative meanings", and that seems strange
to me, and if you do think that I don't agree, but I don't think
anything good will come of further discussion here.

Sounds a little aspieish around the edges, I know it took me a long time
to accept that I had to care what other people understood me to be saying
rather than only what I meant by it.

Well, I do agree that no one but the writer can really claim to
know exactly what he or she meant.

Certainly true.

But sometimes, what you said and what you meant are different. If I am
trying to express my belief that someone is kind towards children in an
unfamiliar language, and I end up using a phrase that has the connotation
of "pedophilia" rather than something else, then it may matter a great
deal more what the average reader is likely to understand than it does
what I thought I was saying.

In English, saying that someone "invented" something is an assertion that
it was not present to begin with; not only that they didn't present the
citation, but that they had no citation to begin with. If they did have
a citation, it wasn't an invention.

While my belief about whether Shao is a nice person or a jerk might be
affected by information about his intent, that doesn't change the actual
meaning of what he said.

I dunno. Shao's coming across to me as in some ways a very familiar sort,
and I was probably just as stubborn about intent as opposed to how other
people understand things, sometime back in the distant past. What fixed it
for me was studying a mix of linguistics and psychology.

-s

 

[Seebs]

TI don't think that's quite right. There is no slight at all if the
domain of discourse is one of opinion to start with. "Nick claims that
red ties are better than blue ones" is not at all rude, but "Nick claims
he knows C" is more than slightly rude.

This, by the way, is NOT (so far as I know) a cultural thing, or even
particularly specific to English. It's a result of Gricean Maxims in
operation.

Basically, to oversimplify horribly: People engage in language activities
with intent to communicate. There is, thus, a consistent underlying
assumption which people generally apply to ALL written or spoken
communication:

If something is stated, it is stated with intent to communicate.

This is why "damning with faint praise" works. Consider, in C:TCN4E,
my statement about the intro to Chapter 7: "I found no errors on this page."
Normally, when discussing a technical book, you would expect to find errors,
but you would expect to find few enough that failure to mention a page would
be interpreted as not having found any errors there. When I explicitly
identify a page on which I found no errors, I am *implicitly* stating that
this is atypical -- that most pages have errors.

Now let's look at the word "claim". The word "claim" is different from
other words that are near-synonyms in that it is specifically used to
disclaim agreement with the statement being referred to; it is used
specifically to highlight who has advanced a given position or belief.
When talking about opinions, that's pretty much normal, and carries no
special weight. When talking about fairly verifiable facts, though, using
"claim" is understood to imply distancing the speaker from the claimant,
and does indeed imply that the claim is perhaps untrue. If you have
any emphasis on the word, it becomes a fairly unambiguous assertion of
disagreement.

Consider the sentence:

Nick claims to be English.

This sentence carries with it the implication that, if I had not said
this, you would not know or believe it. Thus, you don't know who it
is that claimed to be English, you don't know what Nick claimed to be,
or you don't know the status of the assertion that Nick is English.

With emphasis, these can be clarified:

*Nick* claims to be English.

This sentence informs the reader that there was dispute as to who it was
that had asserted that he was English.

Nick claims to be *English*.

This sentence informs the reader that there was dispute as to what
nationality Nick had asserted he had.

Nick *claims* to be English.

This sentence informs the reader that Nick's assertion itself is disputed.

Without explicit emphasis, the next thing to do is fall back on analysis;
we already know that we are talking about Nick, because he's been quoted,
we have the quote of what he said in view... The only other content *left*
is the claim, and thus, the default interpretation is that I am calling
attention to the fact that he has made this claim, which implies that I
think it's significant that he is *claiming* this. Meaning I'm hinting that
I think he's wrong or lying. On a matter where there's little room for
error, that would imply lying.

The reason I'm offering this fairly long explanation is that Shao's posts
are reading, to me, an awful lot like the posts of a lot of people who have
not yet picked up that set of analysis tools, and who don't have the raw
instincts that make them "obvious" to most people, so I figure I should
provide the information. This is one of those things where it looks
strange at first, but if you try it out for a while, the explanatory and
predictive power are amazing. Empirically, people really are doing this
analysis all the time.

For a vaguely C-related example:

Imagine that someone were to ask my opinion of a program, and I were to
respond "Well. It compiled."

Would you understand this to be a positive, neutral, or negative statement
about the program? (Hint: The answer is, so far as I can tell, fairly
unambiguous.)

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

[103 lines deleted]

I believe that the e-mail address under which spinoza1111 posts
works. If you want to have a debate with him, I suggest you do
so by e-mail. Even with "(OT)" in the subject, I can think of no
reasonable justification for doing so in this newsgroup.

*Please* stop feeding the troll.

Didn't we have a similar exchange a while back ....

Why yes, I believe we did.

Some of us are slow learners, I guess. Or maybe it's like quitting
smoking, which (as I understand it) for some people only happens
after repeated attempts.

As for taking the discussion to e-mail -- well, no, that's not
something I really want to do, for a variety of reasons, not all
of which I want to explain here. But one of them is some sense
that the discussion started as a public debate and should finish
that way.

I suggested e-mail as an alternative to posting here. It actually
doesn't matter to me whether you engage him in an e-mail discussion
or not. All I ask is that you not feed the troll *here*.

But my, what a lot of "I really want to reply to this!" stuff
there's been in recent posts. I guess it's good that I have
less time these days for Usenet.

Ignoring trolls is a learned skill. In the past, I often engaged
trolls in debate myself, explaining to them in great detail why
they were wrong. It never did any good, and it was very likely
just the reaction the trolls wanted.

A large part of the reason we participate here is, frankly, to
explain to people why they're wrong. That sounds a bit harsh,
but it's a large part of teaching and learning. So when someone
here makes an incorrect statement about C (as I've done myself
on occasion), people jump in and post corrections, and everyone
learns something. That's the good part.

The trick is to recognize the cases when posting a correction
isn't going to do anyone any good. Without speculating on what
actually motivates them, long painful experience shows that engaging
spinoza1111 in debate *never does any good*.

I understand the temptation. Personally, I've found that a killfile
is a good way to avoid it.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Now perhaps you can see why it's important to be tolerant. A trivial
mistake leads to an ambiguity. It's really not easy to type and
review inside the 11-row box that Google gives for posting via a web
page interface.

[...]

So copy-and-paste it into your favorite editor, edit it there, then
copy-and-paste it back into your web browser.

 

[Shao Miller]

... ... ...
A large part of the reason we participate here is, frankly, to
explain to people why they're wrong.  That sounds a bit harsh,
but it's a large part of teaching and learning.  So when someone
here makes an incorrect statement about C (as I've done myself
on occasion), people jump in and post corrections, and everyone
learns something.  That's the good part.

The trick is to recognize the cases when posting a correction
isn't going to do anyone any good.
... ... ...

Tricky, indeed. Strictly referring to discussion of C, there is a
slight risk that if one (A) makes the judgment that "posting a
correction isn't going to do anyone any good," that something that
they (A) take for granted as being correct cannot be brought to
awareness as something which might actually deserve reconsideration.
That is, (still referring to C) inhibition of one's own offering of
arguments/reasoning/beliefs is a strong way to protect that set from
change, even if that change _might_ "do" "good", were it to happen.

The scenario could be considered akin to use of 'volatile'.

#ifdef DONT_BOTHER_RESPONDING
#define ANY_GOOD
#else
#define ANY_GOOD volatile
#endif

extern ANY_GOOD const int reality;

void f(void) {
static int local_copy = 0;
local_copy |= reality;
/* ... Operate ... */
local_copy |= reality;
/* ... Operate ... */
local_copy |= reality;
/* ... Operate ... */
return;
}

 

[Shao Miller]

[...]> Now perhaps you can see why it's important to be tolerant.  A trivial

mistake leads to an ambiguity.  It's really not easy to type and
review inside the 11-row box that Google gives for posting via a web
page interface.

[...]

So copy-and-paste it into your favorite editor, edit it there, then
copy-and-paste it back into your web browser.

Thanks, Keith. I don't have a time machine, but that's certainly what
I do now.

 

[Seebs]

The trouble with your advice is that you were wrong then and that
you are wrong now.

Without a specific statement as to what I said that was wrong, and what
you propose as an alternative, this statement is not very useful to me.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

[103 lines deleted]

I believe that the e-mail address under whichspinoza1111posts
works.  If you want to have a debate with him, I suggest you do
so by e-mail.  Even with "(OT)" in the subject, I can think of no
reasonable justification for doing so in this newsgroup.

*Please* stop feeding the troll.

"Please stop talking to the Jew"

Didn't we have a similar exchange a while back ....

Some of us are slow learners, I guess.  Or maybe it's like quitting
smoking, which (as I understand it) for some people only happens
after repeated attempts.

How dare you apologize to him? I am not a "troll". I am a human being,
who's also a computer author who was fucking asked by Princeton to
assist Nash. This is what I mean by your enabling, and how dare you
object to me calling you "my dear" in an effort to tone down the utter
hatred I see here?

You enable evil.

 

[spinoza1111]

No one disputes that he is an *effective* troll.  He has a truly
astounding grasp of how to get something *almost* totally wrong, with
just enough hints of logical connectivity to make it look as though
there is some point in argumentation.

Seriously, just plonk him and move on.  It's not going to get anywhere;
people have been trying to argue with the guy for ten or twenty years,
and it's gotten nowhere.  The more you argue, the more he has to believe
crazy stuff not to feel like he's lost a point, so all it does is make
him even more extreme.

**** you, Peter Seebach. You're the problem here. You are self-
confessedly an incompetent programmer who nonetheless, because you're
also a Mama's boy, conducts vicious attacks on reputations creating
nothing but confusion.

 

[spinoza1111]

[103 lines deleted]
I believe that the e-mail address under whichspinoza1111posts
works.  If you want to have a debate with him, I suggest you do
so by e-mail.  Even with "(OT)" in the subject, I can think of no
reasonable justification for doing so in this newsgroup.
*Please* stop feeding the troll.

Didn't we have a similar exchange a while back ....

Why yes, I believe we did.

Some of us are slow learners, I guess.  Or maybe it's like quitting
smoking, which (as I understand it) for some people only happens
after repeated attempts.

As for taking the discussion to e-mail -- well, no, that's not
something I really want to do, for a variety of reasons, not all
of which I want to explain here.  But one of them is some sense
that the discussion started as a public debate and should finish
that way.  

I suggested e-mail as an alternative to posting here.  It actually
doesn't matter to me whether you engage him in an e-mail discussion
or not.  All I ask is that you not feed the troll *here*.

But my, what a lot of "I really want to reply to this!" stuff
there's been in recent posts.  I guess it's good that I have
less time these days for Usenet.

Ignoring trolls is a learned skill.  In the past, I often engaged

"Ignoring Jews is a learned skill."

trolls in debate myself, explaining to them in great detail why
they were wrong.  It never did any good, and it was very likely

To reduce knowledge to a matter of other people being in the wrong is
just sad...and Fascistic.

just the reaction the trolls wanted.

A large part of the reason we participate here is, frankly, to
explain to people why they're wrong.  That sounds a bit harsh,

This presumes that as corporate programmers you know your jobs.
However, in my thirty years of experience world-wide I discovered that
consistently, the corporation does not want you to know your job with
the possible exception of people so specialized that they can and do
not think outside their specialty (as in the common example of the
programmer who knows only one thing, that OO somehow is "inefficient",
because he learned a primitive language in 1980 and simply does not
want to learn anything new...there being too much to see on TV).

You pose as brain workers, but do not give any evidence of love of
thinking.

but it's a large part of teaching and learning.  So when someone

Perhaps it was in your upbringing, but, of course, the problem is that
the programming field is overrun with people who manage anger poorly
owing to dysfunctional educations.

here makes an incorrect statement about C (as I've done myself
on occasion), people jump in and post corrections, and everyone
learns something.  That's the good part.

The trick is to recognize the cases when posting a correction
isn't going to do anyone any good.  Without speculating on what
actually motivates them, long painful experience shows that engagingspinoza1111in debate *never does any good*.

I understand the temptation.  Personally, I've found that a killfile
is a good way to avoid it.

There is a Klown named Kiki
A little God that is Tiki
He runs his mouth
But remains uncouth
That tinpot god named Kiki

 

[spinoza1111]

[...]> Now perhaps you can see why it's important to be tolerant.  A trivial

mistake leads to an ambiguity.  It's really not easy to type and
review inside the 11-row box that Google gives for posting via a web
page interface.

[...]

So copy-and-paste it into your favorite editor, edit it there, then
copy-and-paste it back into your web browser.

Lo! Kiki the Tiki groans from the skies
His pearls of wisdom to flute notes and sighs!
The people are assembled in the public square
The day turns foul, the Sun breaks, and all is Fair
Today's Delphine advice breaks out in thund'rous words
To the cry of circling, astounded, and angry birds
"Copy and paste it into an editor you like,
Edit it there, and lo, Pat, and thus, Mike,
You may paste it back into your Web browser, be it ever so crude
Am I not wise, am I not the "dude".
The people are aghast at finding such Pearls
Of wisdom, most especially the Girls:
They rip off wet underpants at Kiki to toss
They scream with passion, they pant with such Sauce!
You're such a Guru, we Gnow it you Gnu you
Tell us how our nasty little corporate jobs to do!
Kiki the Tiki nods ever so wise
From his throne on a toilet high up in the skies
"Death to all trolls" is his parting oration
And for such crap Kiki's the toast of the nation!

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Dog
Some people love this themselves they do snog
Wrapped up in their bullshit at the bottom of the sea
They never awake to their sad and pathetic own misery.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Ah this is the "sociobiology study group" move.

(Interesting story - clipped)
Interesting take. Of course, irrelevant in my view.

The fact is that when you are dealing with crazy people, at some point,
you have to step back and have everyone agree that the people you are
dealing with are crazy. Their views are not of equal value to other
people's views.

Everyone knows the truth of the above. It's just common sense.

 

[John Kelly]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:53:24 -0700, Keith Thompson

[snip]

A large part of the reason we participate here is, frankly, to
explain to people why they're wrong.

We!!??? You certainly don't speak for me, and I dare say you
don't speak for many others. In my view the value of a newsgroup
like this is to provide a place where skilled practioners can
discuss their art.

I don't object when the cowboys discuss advanced foot shooting
techniques. But many of those discussions don't interest me, so I skip
them.

But please be careful with your we's. You speak for yourself and
for those who agree with you, and not for all of us.

Saying you speak for those who agree with you suggests you were voted
into office. But that's not the case in a ng. You speak for yourself,
period.

 

[John Kelly]

On 06 Aug 2010 16:18:48 GMT, Seebs <[email protected]>
wrote:

Anybody who can piss off Seebs is a friend of mine.