James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

You have not so far answered the question. An answer would
have included [...]

I suggest you look up the word "answer" in an English
dictionary. I did answer.

I was somewhat disappointed when I did look it up. A question is a
request for information, and I had understood an answer to be a response
to that question which provided the requested information. The answer
could be erroneous, or deliberately wrong or misleading, but it was not
an answer unless it at least pretended to provide the requested
information. I was familiar with the common practice of saying that, for instance, "The guard asked 'Who goes there?', and the the commando
answered with a knife to the guard's heart.", but I always considered
that calling something like that an "answer" was a kind of joke. I might have imagined that a dictionary would provide a more general definition
of "answer" that included such things, but I expected that there would
also be a more restricted definition that excluded any response that did
not provide the requested information.
However, that's not what I found. For instance, Wiktionary defines an
answer as "something said or done in reaction to a statement or
question." I saw similar definitions in several other online
dictionaries. Therefore, ANYTHING you do when reacting to a question qualifies as an answer, whether it be a lie, or a non-sequitur, or a
blow to the head.
Therefore, I reluctantly concede that you did answer the question. You
did not, however, provide the requested information.

I find those definitions problematic. If a form says "Answer the
following questions", is i really instructing you to do whatever you
want to do? If so, what's the point of providing such an instruction?

Communicating in English (and probably any natural language, but I
am fluent only in English) is not an exact science. An important
aspect of speaking or writing in English is making sure that the
meaning that got conveyed is the same as the meaning that was
intended.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:

On 28.12.2023 02:14, James Kuyper wrote:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

You have not so far answered the question. An answer would
have included [...]

I suggest you look up the word "answer" in an English
dictionary. I did answer.

I was somewhat disappointed when I did look it up. A question is a
request for information, and I had understood an answer to be a response
to that question which provided the requested information. The answer
could be erroneous, or deliberately wrong or misleading, but it was not
an answer unless it at least pretended to provide the requested
information. I was familiar with the common practice of saying that, for
instance, "The guard asked 'Who goes there?', and the the commando
answered with a knife to the guard's heart.", but I always considered
that calling something like that an "answer" was a kind of joke. I might
have imagined that a dictionary would provide a more general definition
of "answer" that included such things, but I expected that there would
also be a more restricted definition that excluded any response that did
not provide the requested information.
However, that's not what I found. For instance, Wiktionary defines an
answer as "something said or done in reaction to a statement or
question." I saw similar definitions in several other online
dictionaries. Therefore, ANYTHING you do when reacting to a question
qualifies as an answer, whether it be a lie, or a non-sequitur, or a
blow to the head.
Therefore, I reluctantly concede that you did answer the question. You
did not, however, provide the requested information.

I find those definitions problematic. If a form says "Answer the
following questions", is i really instructing you to do whatever you
want to do? If so, what's the point of providing such an instruction?

This is a nice contribution to a somewhat heated conversation. Yes, an answer without information is of little use (on the information level).

Technically it has been answered, but arbitrary answers alone do not
help. [...]

I think it's worth reviewing what happened. I should say that my
review here is being done from memory so some of the details may
be a little off, but the principal points should be reasonably
accurate.

Keith Thompson posted a message in the newsgroup here in a thread
I was not involved in. In response to his posting I posted a
very short reply. Keith responded to that posting asking for
a fuller explanation of my comment. (Let me add parenthetically
that his action in doing that is perfectly reasonable.)

When I saw his response, I realized that my statement had been
misunderstood. I explained that, and said something to the
effect of not wanting to try to unravel the confusion because it
wasn't worth the trouble. Keith responded to that posting,
asking again for an explanation of the statement that he thought
I made but was not what I had meant to say.

I responded again trying to explain that there had been a
miscommunication, and (as I recall) saying again that trying to
unravel that misunderstanding was too much trouble. I took
responsibility for the confusion of my original statement, and
said "I withdraw my previous statement. Okay?". Keith responded
to that posting, probably asking his same question again, however
I don't remember any specific details.

I don't remember anything else until at some later point Keith
accused me of not having answered his question. To be clear,
what he was asking me was to give an explanation of a statement
that I never made, and I had tried to explain that I never made
it, and in any case had no interest in discussing, even assuming
that I know what it is he meant with his question. My impression
is that Keith never understood that what I originally said was
not the same as what he was asking about.

Since I tried not once but twice (or maybe a third time, I'm not
sure) to explain that he was asking for an explanation of
something I never said, and said in effect that the confusion was
my fault, and explicitly withdrew my original statement, I feel
justified in thinking that I gave a fair response to his
inquiries. If he's not satisfied with what I said, well, he is
entitled to his own views. But rather than saying something
about himself not being satisfied, he made an accusation against
me. IMO the accusation made is off the mark, in both the letter
and the spirit of the English language. Feeling that I had been
unfairly accused, I felt obliged to respond in an effort to
convey that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/01/2024 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

For the record, Keith's summary here is completely correct as far as I
remember this thread. Tim's does not match what he or others wrote. I
do not recall ever seeing any kind of "withdrawal". It's clearly
possible that I missed said withdrawal, or that I have forgotten it, but
if there has been such a withdrawal it must have been so subtle that no
one else in the thread saw it. I'm sure that anyone else would have
brought it to Keith's attention long ago. (I certainly would have.)

And if Tim had been interested in communicating clearly, he could have
repeated the withdrawal and given a reference to the first posting of
it, instead of floundering with attempted definitions of the word "answer".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/24/24 04:30, David Brown wrote:

On 24/01/2024 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

For the record, Keith's summary here is completely correct as far as I remember this thread. Tim's does not match what he or others wrote. I
do not recall ever seeing any kind of "withdrawal". It's clearly
possible that I missed said withdrawal, or that I have forgotten it,
but if there has been such a withdrawal it must have been so subtle
that no one else in the thread saw it. I'm sure that anyone else would
have brought it to Keith's attention long ago. (I certainly would have.)

And if Tim had been interested in communicating clearly, he could have repeated the withdrawal and given a reference to the first posting of
it, instead of floundering with attempted definitions of the word
"answer".

On 2023-09-04 18:42:14 Keith said:

It does have undefined behavior, ... but it does not
violate any syntax rule or constraint.

On 2023-09-04 21:16:01 Tim responded:

I say it does.

On 2023-09-04 21:57:44 Keith responded:

What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?

A long discussion occurred, during which Tim repeatedly failed to
identify a syntax rule or constraint violated by that code.

On 2023-10-26 11:56:12, Tim wrote:

I realized at some point that my earlier statement was not
understood the way I meant it. Rather than try to go back and
unwind the miscommunication, I decided to just drop it. I
withdraw my earlier statement. Okay?

Now, I cannot imagine (and as normal, Tim has refused to explain) what
meaning he intended by saying "I say it does." that would make "it does" correct. But he did in fact withdraw that comment.

However, on 2023-11-19 03:25:56, Tim falsely claimed:

I did answer.

Apparently, for reasons best know to Tim (since, as usual, he refuses to explain them), he considered one of the messages in which he failed to
identify a syntax rule or a constraint violated by that code, to be,
despite that failure, an answer to Keith's question.

That message effectively cancelled his withdrawal of that comment.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/01/2024 17:57, James Kuyper wrote:

On 1/24/24 04:30, David Brown wrote:

On 24/01/2024 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

For the record, Keith's summary here is completely correct as far as I
remember this thread. Tim's does not match what he or others wrote. I
do not recall ever seeing any kind of "withdrawal". It's clearly
possible that I missed said withdrawal, or that I have forgotten it,
but if there has been such a withdrawal it must have been so subtle
that no one else in the thread saw it. I'm sure that anyone else would
have brought it to Keith's attention long ago. (I certainly would have.)

And if Tim had been interested in communicating clearly, he could have
repeated the withdrawal and given a reference to the first posting of
it, instead of floundering with attempted definitions of the word
"answer".

On 2023-09-04 18:42:14 Keith said:

It does have undefined behavior, ... but it does not
violate any syntax rule or constraint.

On 2023-09-04 21:16:01 Tim responded:

I say it does.

On 2023-09-04 21:57:44 Keith responded:

What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?

A long discussion occurred, during which Tim repeatedly failed to
identify a syntax rule or constraint violated by that code.

On 2023-10-26 11:56:12, Tim wrote:

I realized at some point that my earlier statement was not
understood the way I meant it. Rather than try to go back and
unwind the miscommunication, I decided to just drop it. I
withdraw my earlier statement. Okay?

Now, I cannot imagine (and as normal, Tim has refused to explain) what meaning he intended by saying "I say it does." that would make "it does" correct. But he did in fact withdraw that comment.

Do you remember a reference or a date for that withdrawal message? I am curious if there was any reason given (I doubt it). When I realise I've written something incorrect about C, I prefer to say a bit more - such
as "sorry for the confusion", or "thanks for correcting me here", or "my
gut feeling is this, but I can't find any references in the standard to
justify it". Perhaps I will try to explain my reasoning for reaching
the wrong conclusion, because that can be helpful in avoiding repeating
the mistake. (To be fair, I have much more practice than Tim at saying incorrect things about C!)

But just writing "I withdraw that comment" can mean everything from "I
was wrong but don't want to admit it directly" to "I know I am right,
but it is beneath my dignity to explain it to you ignorant savages and
I'm fed up listening to your complaints".

I'd like to know more. I'd like to know what Tim thought were the
constraint or syntax rule violations - even if he now thinks they don't
apply. I'd like to know his reasoning both ways, because that's
something we can learn from. Maybe the wording in the standard is poor
or that this is something that could be sent back to the C standards
committee as a DR. And if it was just a gut feeling without
justification, or a simple mistake, it would be nice to clear that up too.

However, on 2023-11-19 03:25:56, Tim falsely claimed:

I did answer.

Apparently, for reasons best know to Tim (since, as usual, he refuses to explain them), he considered one of the messages in which he failed to identify a syntax rule or a constraint violated by that code, to be,
despite that failure, an answer to Keith's question.

That message effectively cancelled his withdrawal of that comment.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/01/2024 16:16, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

On 24/01/2024 17:57, James Kuyper wrote:

On 1/24/24 04:30, David Brown wrote:

On 24/01/2024 00:59, Keith Thompson wrote:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

For the record, Keith's summary here is completely correct as far as I >>>> remember this thread. Tim's does not match what he or others wrote. I
do not recall ever seeing any kind of "withdrawal". It's clearly
possible that I missed said withdrawal, or that I have forgotten it,
but if there has been such a withdrawal it must have been so subtle
that no one else in the thread saw it. I'm sure that anyone else would >>>> have brought it to Keith's attention long ago. (I certainly would have.) >>>>
And if Tim had been interested in communicating clearly, he could have >>>> repeated the withdrawal and given a reference to the first posting of
it, instead of floundering with attempted definitions of the word
"answer".

On 2023-09-04 18:42:14 Keith said:

It does have undefined behavior, ... but it does not
violate any syntax rule or constraint.

On 2023-09-04 21:16:01 Tim responded:

I say it does.

On 2023-09-04 21:57:44 Keith responded:

What syntax rule or constraint does it violate?

A long discussion occurred, during which Tim repeatedly failed to
identify a syntax rule or constraint violated by that code.
On 2023-10-26 11:56:12, Tim wrote:

I realized at some point that my earlier statement was not
understood the way I meant it. Rather than try to go back and
unwind the miscommunication, I decided to just drop it. I
withdraw my earlier statement. Okay?

Now, I cannot imagine (and as normal, Tim has refused to explain)
what
meaning he intended by saying "I say it does." that would make "it does" >>> correct. But he did in fact withdraw that comment.

Do you remember a reference or a date for that withdrawal message?

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:55:51 -0700
Message-ID: <867cn92xa0.fsf@linuxsc.com> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/O-V_X7Cfc6I/m/j1oHoyo5AgAJ>
[...]

Thanks. A key paragraph from that (written by Tim) was :

"""
I realized at some point that my earlier statement was not
understood the way I meant it. Rather than try to go back and
unwind the miscommunication, I decided to just drop it. I
withdraw my earlier statement. Okay?
"""

The rest of his post can (IMHO) be paraphrased by "It's all a
misunderstanding because people are different and make different
assumptions. This is all your fault for being tone deaf and rude" -
directed at Keith.


And I can see that Keith, James and I all replied to Tim's post -
clearly we read it (or at least most of it). I can't speak for anyone
else, obviously, but I had forgotten about this branch of the thread.
It was three months ago, and I rarely remember the details of old
disagreements on the Internet. (If I tried to remember them all, my
memory would have no room for important things like the intricacies of
outdated microcontrollers that I haven't used for decades :-) )


If I have not misread the timings of the posts here, this has been
followed /three times/ by a pattern of people expressing frustration at
Tim's lack of a useful answer or explanation, then a month's pause when everyone put it behind us, then Tim drags it back into the light again
with another unhelpful waffle post.


I am still left with a curiosity about which rules Tim thought the code violated, even if he no longer thinks they apply (his opinions on C are
always worth reading, when he expresses them appropriately). It would
have faded away as one of life's great unanswered questions, if Tim
hadn't kept resurrecting this thread!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

I have now read through your comments several times, first somewhat
quickly and then more slowly and carefully. (To be specific, the
comments referred to are those in the posting being replied to, and
also those three articles up from the immediately previous one, in
the same thread.) Here is a short synopsis of my perceptions from
the prior discussions.

I posted a followup containing only a short one-sentence comment,
which precipitated a long series of postings and comments going
back and forth.

After realizing that my original one-sentence statement had been
misunderstood, I withdrew the earlier statement, meaning the
original one-sentence comment that precipitated it all. I was
hoping to wrap up the discussion. Following my statement of
withdrawal I have nothing more to say about that.

Early on a question was asked about my initial statement but I
realized the subject of the question was not the same as what I
was talking about. Because the subject was different I didn't
have anything to say about it, and that is still the case now.

At some point it seemed like the discussion was finished, but
after a time a posting was made containing what I consider to be
an unfounded accusation. I responded to try to set the record
straight.

At some later point I submitted a followup to a posting from
someone who had not participated in the discussions up to that
point. I did this because I thought some misrepresentations
had been made, and so I made an effort to give a fair and
faithful presentation of what had happened. That posting of
mine provoked another series of comments and reactions, which
appear to be similar to comments and reactions given earlier.

Based on recent comments it appears there was some confusion about
whether, or maybe when, I made the statement about withdrawing my
original comment. I appreciate that the confusion was recognized
and a statement was made to that effect (note that "confusion" is
my word choice, not necessarily anyone else's).

(end of synopsis.)

I make no claim that any of the synopsis statements are offered
as statements of fact.

Let me say again that I have read through your comments and
expect to consider further what you have said. As of now I have
nothing more to say about them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

I have now read through your comments several times, first somewhat
quickly and then more slowly and carefully. (To be specific, the
comments referred to are those in the posting being replied to, and
also those three articles up from the immediately previous one, in
the same thread.) Here is a short synopsis of my perceptions from
the prior discussions.

I posted a followup containing only a short one-sentence comment,
which precipitated a long series of postings and comments going
back and forth.

After realizing that my original one-sentence statement had been
misunderstood, I withdrew the earlier statement, meaning the
original one-sentence comment that precipitated it all. I was
hoping to wrap up the discussion. Following my statement of
withdrawal I have nothing more to say about that.

At the time, you had a great deal to say following your statement of withdrawal.

I'm frankly tired of this whole thing. Please do not feel obligated to
tell us yet again that you have nothing more to say, or to keep up
updated on how many times you've read my through comments.

If you have something relevant to say, especially something relevant to
C, by all means say it. If you don't, I won't ask you not to post, but
I would prefer it.

You've expressed a desire to wrap this up. You can do so now. (I'll
also suggest that others not continue this discussion unless you have something new and relevant to add.)

[...]

Okay.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)