We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
unsigned char buf[100] . . . unsigned int val; . . . val = *((unsigned int *)(&buf[1])); . . .
comments?
Yes, it is, mr smoked sardine. It really is a question about understanding the english.
He specifically wrote "but as I read the text the resulting code of "for (x=0; x !=8 ; x++)" could 'legally' be e.g. either of these..."
It really is a question of language since 100% of the world population are not native english speakers. The people who are not, may have a lot harder to figure out the exact meaning of a sentence with the razor-sharp precision needed to get all the intricacies of a programming language. That is something you really have to accept - if not, it is time for us to start ridiculing you for being more than a little stupid.
If you want to continue discussing for loops, long/small/high/low/... whatever, you will get more respect (whatever alias you choose to use) if you concentrate on the "why" instead of always optimizing your answers for maximum ridicule.
Please return with a full linquistic analysis of the sentences of the for-loop description of the IEC/ANSI stanard. That would be a way better method of getting someone to see the point than slamming down a "No, it couldn't" - especially since you didn't manage to pick up the full meaning of Erik's sentence. You specifically failed to detect the "as I read it", which completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
And yes, I know I'm now open for ridicule too, since I'm not a native english speaker and you will be able to find a number of errors in this message. Fine - shoot. I'm sure everyone will be impressed, and we all love a long bloody battle on this forum.
I disagree. If he had familiarised himself with the concepts of variable scope and postfix operator side-effects there would have been no room for this uncertainty in the first place. If he really, truly doesn't know what 'evaluate' means after 20 years of 'C' programming then I despair.
I assume that the 'text' referred to is your quotations from the standard? Please bear in mind the fact that he hadn't read the standard when his question first arose, so the exact terminology used in those quotes is unlikely to be the problem.
It really is a question of language since 100% of the world population are not native english speakers. The people who are not, may have a lot harder to figure out the exact meaning of a sentence with the razor-sharp precision needed to get all the intricacies of a programming language.
I find that non-technical native english speakers have great difficulty reading technical documents. I find that I cannot make head nor tail of a legal document. Marketing speak flies over my head. As an engineer, though, I can read and understand technical documents. I would expect that any engineer whose english is as good as Erik's and with such lengthy experience to be able to read and understand english technical documents. As I understand it, english is the 'default' language used for international technical documents.
And yes, Erik's english is good, when he makes an effort. His posts are often difficult to understand however for the following reasons: a) He doesn't take enough time to read and understand what he is replying to. b) He doesn't take the time to type properly at the keyboard c) He doesn't take the time to think properly about what he's going to write.
I don't concentrate on 'why' because he should be capable of reading the documentation to find out for himself. In particular, he often criticises newbies for not reading documentation, so I really don't see why he cannot follow his own advice. If I ridicule him it is a response to his arrogance.
Please return with a full linquistic analysis of the sentences of the for-loop description of the IEC/ANSI stanard.
No, I won't attempt that, as linguistics is not my field. In any case, the for statement description is not sufficient on its own to answer his dilemma, as I have already pointed out.
That would be a way better method of getting someone to see the point than slamming down a "No, it couldn't" - especially since you didn't manage to pick up the full meaning of Erik's sentence. You specifically failed to detect the "as I read it", which completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I think I've already answered these points.
And yes, I know I'm now open for ridicule too, since I'm not a native english speaker and you will be able to find a number of errors in this message.
Not at all. In general I find your posts to be well thought out and informative. You make fewer errors in your english than many (most?) native speakers.
I'm sure everyone will be impressed, and we all love a long bloody battle on this forum.
I have no interest in any sort of battle with you. However, I take exception to Erik's hypocritical and unfounded arrogance, so I will point out his errors. If he chooses not to accept that he is wrong I will keep going in the hope that his massive ego will deflate enough to actually accept that he is. Usually this moment comes after endless fabrication and mangling of quotations, desparate attempts to change the subject being debated to something else, childish name calling etc but culminates in the repeated posting of something describing me as a 'blabbering idiot'. That's when I realise that even he has given up on the idea that he can continue trying to brazen his way out of an untenable position.
Please, will everyone here accept my profound appologies for (re-)starting the Erik versus Jack discussion.