|
|
On 27/3/2008 11:05, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Jeff P. Bailey said:
then the onus is on you to be able to support your attacks with evidence
I do. The fact that you haven't seen such evidence merely suggests that you
haven't been here very long and haven't bothered to read the archives. So
- let me give you a few random examples, to save you the trouble of
finding one for yourself. Now please understand that I have *other stuff*
to do. I don't mind backing up my statements, but I'm not going to spend
the rest of the day pulling out dozens of examples. If you want more than
I've given here, find them yourself. They are certainly there to find.
OK... let's see.
<qP-dnazYjZPR-wTYRVnyiAA@xxxxxx>
jn: an implicit cast from signed to unsigned is done,
RH: There is no such thing as an implicit cast. Casts are explicit
conversions.
RH: Unsigned types don't overflow.
jn: This is nonsense.
RH: No, it isn't.
The first case is pure word games; in the second, you are obviously
arguing at cross purposes.
<_I2dnU6QSrRkFwzYnZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d@xxxxxx>
A discussion of whether the English word "width" is a good one to
describe specifying printf() precision. Word games!
<uN6dnZA-p9x6Tg3aRVnytAA@xxxxxx>
jn: Consider int i = 38700;
RH: Why? It's not guaranteed to work. Instead, consider:
long int i = 38700;
which *is* guaranteed to work.
This is completely disingenuous on Mr Heathfield's part, given that
jacob's next lines in his original post show that the whole point of his
example is that he knows it isn't guaranteed to work:
jn: If you do not care about int size you will never know that this will
not work in 16 bit implementations, or (worst) i will be initialized to
something completely different.
<rIOdnU_bcLzTolnanZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@xxxxxx>
More word games on whether "Technical reports" and "Standards" are the
same thing.
In summary, I find your evidence wafer thin. Only one of the examples
shows definite dishonesty on your part, but all of the others show every
sign of being a deliberate attempt on your part to misconstrue what
jacob has said for the purposes of presenting him in a negative light.
Your examples have only confirmed my belief that you have a personal
agenda to undermine him.
|
|