deciphering a macro

[Nick Keighley]

Sentences of the form:

inanimate object should

are philosophically unintelligible.

Objects lack agency and volition.

your grasp of english grammar is about on pair with your C. It's not
"correctness" that has the volition in that sentence but you.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Sentences of the form:

inanimate object should

are philosophically unintelligible.
Objects lack agency and volition.

Hence,

correctness should

is ludicrous.

That's nonsense, and arrogant nonsense at that.

How silly of Shakespeare to use such ludicrous phrases as "Revenge
should have no bounds" (Hamlet) or "Which end o' the beam should bow"
(The Tempest). How lax of Russel to write "Philosophy should show us
the hierarchy of our instinctive beliefs" (The Problems of Philosophy,
1912). How fortunate we are to get instruction from you is such
matters!

<snip>

 

[Keith Thompson]

"Nick Keighley" ha scritto nel messaggio

there are some subjects where being pedantically right is over kill.
You can be about right or good enough. Unfortunately computer
programming isn't one of those subjects. The computer does exactly
what you tell it. Absolute corretness is important.

instead of "Absolute correctness", what about one
"relative correcteness" at last until when some error goes
out from some test, or from the use?
[and that error is so importat to be correct]

There are some things that are really easy to get right, including
getting the return type of getc right. Absolute correctness isn't
always possible, but getting the little things right is.

 

[Dann Corbit]

"Nick Keighley" ha scritto nel messaggio
there are some subjects where being pedantically right is over kill.
You can be about right or good enough. Unfortunately computer
programming isn't one of those subjects. The computer does exactly
what you tell it. Absolute corretness is important.

instead of "Absolute correctness", what about one
"relative correcteness" at last until when some error goes
out from some test, or from the use?
[and that error is so importat to be correct]

There are some things that are really easy to get right, including
getting the return type of getc right. Absolute correctness isn't
always possible, but getting the little things right is.

if you mean how getc is written: i see now in K&R2 getc() is a macro
in which there is the function _fillbuf(),
there could be errors, who know it?

In K&R2 there is an example of an implementation of fopen() and getc()
in section 8.5.

This has nothing to do with how any actual library implementor performs
the task. If the actual library implementor should create a function
called _fillbuf(), which resides in the implementation's namespace, and
if _fillbuf() was indeed used as shown in the sample implementation in
the book, then the library implementor is responsible for the
correctness of _fillbuf(). If getc() does not work as defined in the
standard and the reason is that they have done something wrong with
_fillbuf() then you should report the error to your library vendor. I
guess that such an errant version of a C library does not exist.

if gets "little things" right is possible, than it is possible not
doing error in assembly: what is more small than these instructions?

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

 

[Nick Keighley]

oh, and that isn't the name of the company that is leaking oil off
your coast

 

[Nick Keighley]

[...]  Absolute corretness is important.
instead of "Absolute correctness", what about one
"relative correcteness" at last until when some error goes
out from some test, or from the use?
[and that error is so importat to be correct]

There are some things that are really easy to get right, including
getting the return type of getc right.  Absolute correctness isn't
always possible, but getting the little things right is.

To be fair, Nick K didn't demand absolute correctness.

He nearly did - but not quite.

 

[Keith Thompson]

"Nick Keighley" ha scritto nel messaggio
there are some subjects where being pedantically right is over kill.
You can be about right or good enough. Unfortunately computer
programming isn't one of those subjects. The computer does exactly
what you tell it. Absolute corretness is important.

instead of "Absolute correctness", what about one
"relative correcteness" at last until when some error goes
out from some test, or from the use?
[and that error is so importat to be correct]

There are some things that are really easy to get right, including
getting the return type of getc right. Absolute correctness isn't
always possible, but getting the little things right is.

if you mean how getc is written: i see now in K&R2 getc() is a macro
in which there is the function _fillbuf(),
there could be errors, who know it?

No, I mean how getc is called in user code. In this thread, when
someone pointed out that getc returns int, not char, Uno replied:

| Because the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans when I'm
| looking for something more
| important.

[...]

 

[Nick Keighley]

"Dann Corbit" ha scritto nel messaggio

what does it mean?

it is meaningless. Like your sentence.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

From http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1997/chomsky.html
(Essay by yours truly)

The sentence, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", was
presented by Chomsky, as a great example of a series of words
strung together randomly. Not only is it grammatical according to
the lexical classification, and non-sense on a semantic level. Or
so goes the claim.

That has become the common view, but it is not why the phrase was
originally presented. Specifically, Chomsky did not say that no meaning
could be attributed to it. For his purposes it was sufficient that it
be absurd enough to be unlikely to have been uttered before.

[You seem to be using "non-sense" in the way that it is used in
linguistics which has a different meaning to "nonsense" (i.e. "absurd")
which is the word Chomsky used.]

But is the claim correct?

There is nothing wrong with refuting the common misconception that it
has no meaning, but that claim should not be attributed to Chomsky. I
am sure he is quite astute enough to know that meanings can be found for
superficially absurd statements.

<snip>

 

[Uno]

That's nonsense, and arrogant nonsense at that.

How silly of Shakespeare to use such ludicrous phrases as "Revenge
should have no bounds" (Hamlet) or "Which end o' the beam should bow"
(The Tempest). How lax of Russel to write "Philosophy should show us
the hierarchy of our instinctive beliefs" (The Problems of Philosophy,
1912). How fortunate we are to get instruction from you is such
matters!

The sun should shine on everyone, simultaneously.

Russell embarrassed himself in particular ways. (His sentiments on
coition are like Mr. Burns'. Isssshhhh.)

> "Which end o' the beam should bow"

I look at this as different than interpersonal normative posturing, as
there is a lot of tensor mathematics hiding in the modal there. The
"should" is an accounting of forces along the relevant member.

I don't want you to call me arrogant.

 

[Uno]

People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

"Your grasp of English grammar is about on a par with your C" would have
made a lot more sense.

Well that's where being 2 meters and a hundred kilograms helps, in that
one needs to say less. Funny, I never got less than an A in English,
German, or Russian, deutsch ausgenommen, da es mich nicht heiss machte.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Russell embarrassed himself in particular ways.  (His sentiments on
coition are like Mr. Burns'.  Isssshhhh.)

don't post while drunk

I don't want you to call me arrogant.

don't be arrogant then

 

[Uno]

Do you, then, think that it's important to start in the wrong place?

I may have a little displaced anger about the British fucking my Gulf
right now. Sorry, it will pass. (The Gulf, not the anger.)

 

[Nick]

I may have a little displaced anger about the British fucking my Gulf
right now. Sorry, it will pass. (The Gulf, not the anger.)

Well she shouldn't have winked like that.

 

[blmblm]

(Essay by yours truly)

I suspect you will not be pleased to hear that I found your essay
disturbingly reminiscent of someone who appears to have left the
building, for now anyway. Sort of a .

[ snip ]

 

[Richard Bos]

oh, and that isn't the name of the company that is leaking oil off
your coast

Well, to be fair, Amoco is no longer the official name of the company.

(IIRC they once considered changing their name to Cadiz American Oil,
but had second thoughts for some reason.)

Richard

 

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

Pleased is not the word you want; highly amused would be
appropriate.

Okay, s/pleased/highly amused/, and we get ....

"I suspect you will not be highly amused ...."

Very possibly that wasn't what you meant. Just nitpicking a bit.