Looks like I've pissed off the moderator on clax, so I'm forwarding
my response to Rod here instead...
"Rod Pemberton" <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:87prp5t24v.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Rod Pemberton" <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> > news:87y73ttvjg.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> "Rod Pemberton" <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > Walter Bright's (Digital Mars) comments on parameter evaluation
> (circa
>> > '88):
>> >> >
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc/msg/be06e13d93f43111
>> >> >
>> >> > (I.e., the C89 spec. only requires that variadic function
parameters
>> >> > must be evaluated right to left... not fixed function parameters.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We'll need those few words later.
>> >> I don't have C89 to hand
>> >
>> > Nor do I.
>> >
>> >> would you care to cite sup****t
>> >> for that?
>> >>
>> > Cite sup****t for what? I didn't make any claims... I only summarize
> his
>> > post for those who wouldn't follow the link to read it. What did you
> think
>> > the "I.e.,.." in parenthesis is for?
>>
>> But you didn't summarise his post at all.
>
> What?
What I said.
>> Your 'I.e.' seems to
>> contain only your own original ideas only tangentially related
>> to what Walter Bright was talking about,
>
> My own tangential ideas...?! Phil, it does no such thing. I don't know
how
> you can make that claim.
Easily.
>> and which I believe
>> to be misguided.
>
> "misguided"... I believe you should've felt free to post your thoughts
on
> what you believed Walter Bright had said right here. You didn't
(typical).
You already posted a link to what he said. There was no need to
repeat it. I was expecting you to have the integrity to go back
to your post, and to your link, and to compare the two, rather
than just pretending that nothing was wrong.
> I believe there was a reason you didn't (argumentative). But, you had no
> problem spending time complaining that I'm wrong (frequent).
Don't play your part, and I won't play mine.
> Since you seem
> to be devoid of thoughts other than criticisms at the moment, this is
the
> im****tant part of what Walter Bright said as I understood it:
>
> 1) ANSI C (e.g., C89) requires functions without ellipsis '...' to
have a
> fixed number of parameters. (i.e., prototyped with variable args)
Not disputed.
> 2) ANSI C, through the use of syntax - specifically ellipsis '...',
allows
> a compiler to evaluate functions with fixed parameters in any order
instead
> of just right-to-left order. (i.e., cdecl in this situation)
> (I.e., a compiler can choose the best calling convention, which are 'C
> calling convention' or 'cdecl' and 'Pascal' in this situation, from
Rahul
> Dhesi's earlier comments.)
Now that's certainly a misrepresentation of what he says, and
the standard too, for that matter.
Firstly, what you've written barely makes sense. The somewhat
irrelevant order in which functions are evaluated is even
*more* tangential to your previous diversion (underlined above).
The topic under discussion was the parameters themselves.
You, as indicated above, made an assertion about the order of
evaluation of those parameters being im****tant. Walter, however,
makes no mention at all of evaluation order at all.
Do you wish me to quote his entire post in order to prove
that he doesn't make mention of it?
> 3) ANSIC C doesn't allow the compiler to select a non-right-to-left
> calling convention (non-'cdecl' in this case, such as 'Pascal'), if the
> function has variadic arguments, or if functions with variadic arguments
are
> unprototyped.
Not disputed.
> Except for an explicit statement of what the calling conventions are
(Rahul
> Dhesi's post) and how they pass arguments (Roberto ****rono****a's post)
> which were implicit in the first part Walter's post, this is all
directly
> from the second to last paragraph of Walter's post. I don't see how
this is
> tangential or misguided.
Because you're confusing parameter-passing/stack-cleanup (a.k.a.
calling convention) with the order in which the parameters are
evaluated. If you could tell the difference between those two
concepts you'd be on the right track.
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
|
