C's syntax (was Re: Python Formatted C Converter (PfCC))

[Alex Martelli]

"Grant Griffin" <not.this at seebelow.org> wrote in message
news:39FE7EC7.89DC9747 at seebelow.org...
    [snip]
> I hope you realize the non-applicability of your example.  (If not, I

No: it's a close analogy.  If somebody _in good faith_ was truly
unable to spot some of the obvious defects in C's syntax (this does
not apply to you, see later), then clearly his or her command of
it, and experience using and teaching it, would have to be quite
scarce -- just like, I suspect, the Italian knowledge of the
average reader of this newsgroup.

> think there's a good chance the rest of us do. <wink>)  If, instead of

If someone (again, someone _in good faith_) truly could not see
the analogy's full applicability, I trust they now can.  And I've
seen posts from others, in direct answer to yours, clearly defending
the relevance of my displaying my qualifications regarding C, in
defense to baseless insinuations hinging on "not liking it" -- in
a far more concise way than is my wont (you'll notice I _never_
claim concision as one of my strong points).

> tangentializing about Italian,

Not a 'tangent' (quite differently from your repeated attempts at
introducing meta-themes about 'bragging'...), but rather a strict
analogy.

> you were to make any well-reasoned and
> insightful points about failings in C's syntax (any at all: honestly, we
> get more curious each time you dodge the question!) then there's a very

Far from "dodging the question", I have repeatedly answered it, making
several "points about failing in C's syntax".  See, for example:

http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685615011
http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=685727921

You replied to the latter message, for example, completely failing
to answer any of the points I had raised, but rather reiterating the
feeble attempts at humour that appear to be your hallmark, as well
as advancing your first attempt to sidetrack the discussion into a
metadiscussion about 'bragging'.  That specific attempt having
failed, you insisted in that purpose, apparently trying to drive the
theme *away* from C syntax; and now, 6 days later, you claim I "dodge
the question" of specific points on C's syntax?!  It's been a while
since I stopped crediting you with being in good faith -- I just
hope your obvious dishonesty can become as clear to other readers
as it is to me (what is your motive, I could not care less about;
like any other culprit of wilful misbehaviour, you're surely quite
able to rationalize some excellent-to-yourself justification; at
this point, though, it's only _other_ readers, people of good faith,
that are of any interest to me).

I don't claim my points are 'well-reasoned and insightful', I claim,
rather, that they are _completely obvious_ to any sensible person.
Dennis Ritchie, inventor of C, an _eminently_ sensible person, does
NOT try to 'defend' many of these peculiarities of C's syntax -- he
accepts they're flaws, and _explains_ the historical accidents and
mistakes that ['thanks' to the inevitable need of keeping backwards
compatibility] led to such flaws being in the language's syntax.

> good chance that most everyone here would understand (if not agree.)
> The reason is that nearly all of us here speak Italian...er, I
> mean..."C".

So, to repeat one example, you claim to be SO deliriously happy that
    if(a&3==3)
does not test whether a has both lowest bits set, but just the
_single_ lowest bit, that you can't even *understand* somebody
(e.g., Dennis Ritchie -- or, me) considering this aspect of C's
syntax a DEFECT...?


> p.s.  I'm really impressed with that stuff about co-authoring with a
> prominent Italian linguist, but I'm still gonna say that when I helped
> Al Gore invent the Internet, that was even cooler.  <wink>

Please see, e.g., the Korpuslinguistik at:
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/ROMANISTIK/PERSONAL/Burr/corpus/biblio.htm

Your reference for your contribution to Mr Gore's "invention"...?


Alex