On Sunday, 20 October 2013 10:56:46 UTC-7, Philip Herron wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
>
> I've been working on GCCPY since roughly november 2009 at least in its
>
> concept. It was announced as a Gsoc 2010 project and also a Gsoc 2011
>
> project. I was mentored by Ian Taylor who has been an extremely b
In article ,
Chris Kaynor wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Global:
>
>int arr[10];
>int main()
>{
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
>printf("arr[%d] = %d\n", i, arr[i]);
>}
>printf("\n");
>return 0;
>}
>
>As for a reference:
>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1831290/static-variable-i
Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:36:42 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Mind you, the thought of a bot with a Ph.D. is mind boggling.
>
> You can buy degrees on the Internet quite cheaply:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_with_fraudulent_diplom
On 2013-10-28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> On 2013-10-26, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2013 22:25, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>>
>>> Please give it a rest Mark, nobody is falling for your pseudo
>>> babel.
>>
>> I think you do him a disservi
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-10-26, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 26/10/2013 22:25, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>> Please give it a rest Mark, nobody is falling for your pseudo babel.
>
> I think you do him a disservice. I'm pretty sure it's genuine,
> bona-fide, 24K,
On 2013-10-26, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/10/2013 22:25, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> Please give it a rest Mark, nobody is falling for your pseudo babel.
I think you do him a disservice. I'm pretty sure it's genuine,
bona-fide, 24K, dyed-in-the-wool, 99 and 44/100 pure babble.
--
Grant Edwards
On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:44:14 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> Otherwise, most of this, while sloppy, still stands.
Yes
All your quotes are unattributed
So your discussion is both sloppy and meaningless
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> I see the big man stepping in to answer for his homies
After re-reading the discussion, I wish to retract what I'm saying
here and apologize to John who seems like a decent guy.
>, but while his
> explanation satisfies their question of "well why do these magic
> values get used then, if what M
> What a mess of a discussion.
I see the big man stepping in to answer for his homies, but while his
explanation satisfies their question of "well why do these magic
values get used then, if what Mark says is true?", it doesn't address
the real confusion: What is the difference between "script" c
On 26/10/2013 22:25, Mark Janssen wrote:
Please give it a rest Mark, nobody is falling for your pseudo babel.
--
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
On 26/10/2013 22:33, Mark Janssen wrote:
Apologies will be accepted on the list.
BTW, I can't resist pointing out that you guys are like a cup already
full of (black) coffee -- too full to allow the pure water of clarity
to enter.
(cf. Buddhism) .. (boom)
MarkJanssen
Tacoma, Washington
On 10/25/2013 12:18 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> As for the hex value for Nan who really gives a toss? The whole point is
>> that you initialise to something that you do not expect to see. Do you not
>> have a text book that explains this concept?
>
> No, I don't think there is a textbook that exp
> Apologies will be accepted on the list.
BTW, I can't resist pointing out that you guys are like a cup already
full of (black) coffee -- too full to allow the pure water of clarity
to enter.
(cf. Buddhism) .. (boom)
MarkJanssen
Tacoma, Washington
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
[Getting back to some old comments]
>>> A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say anything
>>> about semantics. So how could this be used to produce executable C code
>>> for a program? BNF is used to produce parsers. But a parser isn't
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> A C program is
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:36:42 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Mind you, the thought of a bot with a Ph.D. is mind boggling.
You can buy degrees on the Internet quite cheaply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_with_fraudulent_diplomas
PhD's are more expensive, which leads me to think th
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ned Batchelder
> wrote:
>> (Offlist)
You responded on-list to a private email that was even tagged as
off-list. Please be more careful and courteous.
Anyway, IEEE floating-point makes it pretty clear that a
On Friday 2013 October 25 14:11, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Will you please do yourself a favour and get a new dealer before you do
> some real damage, the batch you're currently on is definitely contaminated.
Meet Mark Janssen:
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/pangaia/index.php?title=User:Avera
On 25/10/2013 22:37, Mark Janssen wrote:
I'm still waiting on the binary-digit lexer, Ned.
The whole Python world is still waiting on your response to this
http://code.activestate.com/lists/python-ideas/19908/. You were asked
three times originally to respond. I've referenced this twice
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> (Offlist)
>
> Mark, these conversations would go much more smoothly if you would make
> direct statements about technical points. Your messages are usually
> insinuating questions, or personal insults.
Yes, thank you. That is correct.
>
On 25/10/2013 22:02, Mark Janssen wrote:
But OTOH, it can also be explained away entirely by (as you previously
noted) the Dunning-Kruger effect, with the same uninformed responses
trotted out to everything.
It was rusi who first mentioned this, I merely replied in my normal dead pan
way.
Slig
>> But OTOH, it can also be explained away entirely by (as you previously
>> noted) the Dunning-Kruger effect, with the same uninformed responses
>> trotted out to everything.
>
> It was rusi who first mentioned this, I merely replied in my normal dead pan
> way.
>
> Slight aside, I spelt your surn
On 25/10/2013 21:48, Tim Delaney wrote:
But OTOH, it can also be explained away entirely by (as you previously
noted) the Dunning-Kruger effect, with the same uninformed responses
trotted out to everything.
It was rusi who first mentioned this, I merely replied in my normal dead
pan way.
Sli
On 26 October 2013 07:36, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I can't see it being a bot on the grounds that a bot wouldn't be smart
> enough to snip a URL that referred to itself as a quack.
>
My thought based on some of the responses is that they seem auto-generated,
then tweaked - so not a bot per-se, but
On 25/10/2013 21:29, Mark Janssen wrote:
We've been discussing *DEBUGGING*.
Are you making it LOUD and *clear* that you don't know what you're
talking about?
Input: Yes/no
no
Now please explain what you do not understand about the data below that's
been written by Oscar Benjamin, myself an
On 25/10/2013 21:11, Tim Delaney wrote:
On 26 October 2013 06:18, Mark Janssen mailto:dreamingforw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> As for the hex value for Nan who really gives a toss? The whole
point is
> that you initialise to something that you do not expect to see.
Do you not
On 26 October 2013 06:18, Mark Janssen wrote:
> > As for the hex value for Nan who really gives a toss? The whole point is
> > that you initialise to something that you do not expect to see. Do you
> not
> > have a text book that explains this concept?
>
> No, I don't think there is a textbook
>>> We've been discussing *DEBUGGING*.
>>
>> Are you making it LOUD and *clear* that you don't know what you're
>> talking about?
>
> Input: Yes/no
>
> no
>
> Now please explain what you do not understand about the data below that's
> been written by Oscar Benjamin, myself and Ned Batchelder, spec
>>> As for the hex value for Nan who really gives a toss? The whole point is
>>> that you initialise to something that you do not expect to see. Do you
>>> not have a text book that explains this concept?
>>
>> No, I don't think there is a textbook that explains such a concept of
>> initializing
On 25/10/2013 20:18, Mark Janssen wrote:
As for the hex value for Nan who really gives a toss? The whole point is
that you initialise to something that you do not expect to see. Do you not
have a text book that explains this concept?
No, I don't think there is a textbook that explains such a
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:39:09 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, rusi wrote:
> >
> > I dont see how thats any more relevant than:
> > Whats the hex value of the add instruction?
>
>
> You "don't see". That is correct. Btw, I believe the hex value for
> the
> As for the hex value for Nan who really gives a toss? The whole point is
> that you initialise to something that you do not expect to see. Do you not
> have a text book that explains this concept?
No, I don't think there is a textbook that explains such a concept of
initializing memory to anyt
On 2013-10-25, Mark Janssen wrote:
> OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
> often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
>>>
>>> Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
>>
>> It's a useful debugging technique to initialize m
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:59 AM, rusi wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:15:43 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
>> Clearly the python list has been taken over by TheKooks. Notice he
>> did not respond to the request. Since we are talking about digital
>> computers (with digital memory), I'm re
On 25/10/2013 19:45, Mark Janssen wrote:
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
It's a useful debugging technique to initialize memory to distin
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:15:43 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> Clearly the python list has been taken over by TheKooks. Notice he
> did not respond to the request. Since we are talking about digital
> computers (with digital memory), I'm really curious what the hex value
> for NaN is to init
>> OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
>> often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
>>>
>>> It's a useful debugging technique to initialize memory to distinctive
>>> value
On 25/10/2013 19:26, Mark Janssen wrote:
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
It's a useful debugging technique to initialize memory to distin
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
>>
>> Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
>
> It's a useful debugging technique to initialize memory to distinctive values
> that should
On 10/25/13 7:55 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 22/10/2013 18:37, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of j
On 25/10/2013 12:55, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 22/10/2013 18:37, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:55:43 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Mark Lawrence
> wrote:
>> On 22/10/2013 18:37, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>>> OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros?
>>> I often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debug
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 22/10/2013 18:37, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>> OTOH why in particular would you want to initialise them with zeros? I
>> often initialise arrays to nan which is useful for debugging.
Is this some kind of joke? What has this list become?
--
Antoine Pitrou, 22.10.2013 10:55:
> Philip Herron writes:
>> Its interesting a few things come up what about:
>> exec and eval. I didn't really have a good answer for this at my talk at
>> PYCon IE 2013 but i am going to say no. I am
>> not going to implement these. Partly because eval and exec at
On 10/23/2013 12:25 AM, Philip Herron wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 07:48:41 UTC+1, John Nagle wrote:
>> On 10/20/2013 3:10 PM, victorgarcia...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:56:46 PM UTC-2, Philip Herron
>>> wrote:
> Nagle replies:
>>
Documentation can be fo
On 23/10/2013 08:25, Philip Herron wrote:
Personally I have no interest in your project but do wish you the best
of luck with your endeavours.
However I do have a personnal interest in my eyesite, which gets
strained by reading posts such as yours. In order to assist me in
looking after my
On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 07:48:41 UTC+1, John Nagle wrote:
> On 10/20/2013 3:10 PM, victorgarcia...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:56:46 PM UTC-2, Philip Herron wrote:
>
> >> I've been working on GCCPY since roughly november 2009 at least in its
>
> >> concept. It was
On 10/20/2013 3:10 PM, victorgarcia...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:56:46 PM UTC-2, Philip Herron wrote:
>> I've been working on GCCPY since roughly november 2009 at least in its
>> concept. It was announced as a Gsoc 2010 project and also a Gsoc 2011
>> project. I was mentored
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> Mark Janssen writes:
>
Is your language Turing complete?
>>>
>>> 1) No, it's not.
>>> 2) So what? That should make it easier to compile to C, if anything.
>>> 3) Don't change the subject.
>>
>> Well, if your language is not
On 23/10/2013 05:05, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 10/22/2013 12:28 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Thank you. You may be seated.
Ranting Rick, is that you?
I think that's unfair, rr can be very helpful when discussing IDLE type
issues. In comparison all that appears to have eminated from Tacoma,
Wa
On 23/10/2013 02:36, alex23 wrote:
On 23/10/2013 4:40 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
I've tried to be polite, and I've tried to be helpful, but I'm sorry:
either you don't understand a lot of the terms you are throwing around,
or you aren't disciplined enough to focus on a topic long enough to
explai
On 10/22/2013 12:28 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Thank you. You may be seated.
Ranting Rick, is that you?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 7:06:40 AM UTC+5:30, alex23 wrote:
> On 23/10/2013 4:40 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> > I've tried to be polite, and I've tried to be helpful, but I'm sorry:
> > either you don't understand a lot of the terms you are throwing around,
> > or you aren't disciplined eno
On 23/10/2013 4:40 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
I've tried to be polite, and I've tried to be helpful, but I'm sorry:
either you don't understand a lot of the terms you are throwing around,
or you aren't disciplined enough to focus on a topic long enough to
explain yourself. Either way, I don't kno
On 2013-10-22, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> Is your language Turing complete?
>>>
>>
>> 1) No, it's not.
>> 2) So what? That should make it easier to compile to C, if anything.
>> 3) Don't change the subject.
>
> Well, if your language is not Turing complete, it is not clear that
> you will be abl
Mark Janssen writes:
>>> Is your language Turing complete?
>>>
>>
>> 1) No, it's not.
>> 2) So what? That should make it easier to compile to C, if anything.
>> 3) Don't change the subject.
>
> Well, if your language is not Turing complete, it is not clear that
> you will be able to compile
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:20:52 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Considering that rapiding took about 1200ms (ish - again, cold cache)
>> previously, adding even just 250ms is noticeable.
>
> Please excuse my skepticism, but in my experience,
On 2013-10-22, Grant Edwards wrote:
> C initializes to defined zero values. For most machines in use today,
> those values _happen_ to be all-bits-zero.
>
> This makes the implementation trivial: chuck them all into some
> pre-defined section (e.g. ".bss"), and then on startup, you zero-out
> al
On 2013-10-22, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 22/10/2013 20:27, Neil Cerutti wrote:
>> On 2013-10-22, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>>> Neil Cerutti writes:
Context-sensitive grammars can be parse, too.
>>>
>>> That's not English. Do you mean "parsed"?
>>
>> Thanks, yes, I meant parsed.
>>
>>> But con
On 22/10/2013 20:27, Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2013-10-22, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
Neil Cerutti writes:
Context-sensitive grammars can be parse, too.
That's not English. Do you mean "parsed"?
Thanks, yes, I meant parsed.
But context-sentitive grammars cannot be specified by BNF.
Yes. I t
On 22/10/2013 20:20, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
Neil Cerutti writes:
Context-sensitive grammars can be parse, too.
That's not English. Do you mean "parsed"?
But context-sentitive grammars cannot be specified by BNF.
That's not English. Do you mean "context-sensitive"? :)
--
Python is the
On 2013-10-22, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> Neil Cerutti writes:
>> Context-sensitive grammars can be parse, too.
>
> That's not English. Do you mean "parsed"?
Thanks, yes, I meant parsed.
> But context-sentitive grammars cannot be specified by BNF.
Yes. I thought Mark might have had a misconcep
Neil Cerutti writes:
>
> Context-sensitive grammars can be parse, too.
>
That's not English. Do you mean "parsed"?
But context-sentitive grammars cannot be specified by BNF.
--
Piet van Oostrum
WWW: http://pietvanoostrum.com/
PGP key: [8DAE142BE17999C4]
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
On 10/22/13 1:50 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
exclusive OR) sense ;^) <-- face says "both".
Could you please be less snarky? We're trying to communicate here, and it
is not at all clear yet who is confused and who is not. If you ar
On 2013-10-22, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2013-10-22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:04:57 +, Dave Angel wrote:
>>> but here you go on to say the C code is unsafely skipping
>>> initialization, which is not the case.
>>
>> Are you talking generically, or specifically about the
On 22/10/2013 19:40, rusi wrote:
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:53:22 PM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
A BNF doesn't provide enough information to compile a program to C.
That's all I'm trying to help you understand. If you don't agree, then
we have to talk about the meaning of the words BNF
On 2013-10-22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:53:07 +, Frank Miles wrote:
>
> [snip C code]
>> What you're missing is that arr[] is an automatic variable. Put a
>> "static" in front of it, or move it outside the function (to become
>> global) and you'll see the difference.
>
On 22/10/2013 19:22, Mark Janssen wrote:
Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
produce/specify a *context-free* "grammar". A lexer parses the tokens
specified in the BNF into an Abstract Syntax Tree. If one can produce
such a tree for any given source, the language, in the
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:53:22 PM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> A BNF doesn't provide enough information to compile a program to C.
> That's all I'm trying to help you understand. If you don't agree, then
> we have to talk about the meaning of the words BNF, compile, program, and C.
On 10/22/13 2:22 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
produce/specify a *context-free* "grammar". A lexer parses the tokens
specified in the BNF into an Abstract Syntax Tree. If one can produce
such a tree for any given source, the language, in the
On 10/22/13 2:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
exclusive OR) sense ;^) <-- face says "both".
Could you please be less snarky?
Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
produce/specify a *context-free* "grammar". A
>> Is your language Turing complete?
>>
>
> 1) No, it's not.
> 2) So what? That should make it easier to compile to C, if anything.
> 3) Don't change the subject.
Well, if your language is not Turing complete, it is not clear that
you will be able to compile it at all. That's the difference
>> Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
>> produce/specify a *context-free* "grammar". A lexer parses the tokens
>> specified in the BNF into an Abstract Syntax Tree. If one can produce
>> such a tree for any given source, the language, in theory, can be
>> compiled by GCC
On 2013-10-22, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
>>> exclusive OR) sense ;^) <-- face says "both".
>>
>> Could you please be less snarky? We're trying to communicate here, and it
>> is not at all clear yet who is confused and who is not.
So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
exclusive OR) sense ;^) <-- face says "both".
>>>
>>> Could you please be less snarky?
>>
>> Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
>> produce/specify a *context-free* "grammar". A lexer parses the t
On 22/10/2013 18:50, Mark Janssen wrote:
So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
exclusive OR) sense ;^) <-- face says "both".
Could you please be less snarky? We're trying to communicate here, and it
is not at all clear yet who is confused and who is not. If you a
Mark Janssen said:
> Unattributed
> > No its not like those 'compilers' i dont really agree with a compiler
> > generating C/C++ and saying its producing native code. I dont really
> > believe
> > its truely within the statement. Compilers that do that tend to put in alot
> > of type saftey cod
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
> Okay. The purpose of BNF (at least as I envision it) is to
> produce/specify a *context-free* "grammar". A lexer parses the tokens
> specified in the BNF into an Abstract Syntax Tree. If one can produce
> such a tree for any given source,
>> So which of you is confused? I ask that in the inclusive (not
>> exclusive OR) sense ;^) <-- face says "both".
>
> Could you please be less snarky? We're trying to communicate here, and it
> is not at all clear yet who is confused and who is not. If you are
> interested in discussing tec
On 22/10/2013 18:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:53:07 +, Frank Miles wrote:
[snip C code]
What you're missing is that arr[] is an automatic variable. Put a
"static" in front of it, or move it outside the function (to become
global) and you'll see the difference.
Ah, th
On 2013-10-22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:53:07 +, Frank Miles wrote:
>
> [snip C code]
>> What you're missing is that arr[] is an automatic variable. Put a
>> "static" in front of it, or move it outside the function (to become
>> global) and you'll see the difference.
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:53:07 +, Frank Miles wrote:
>
> [snip C code]
> > What you're missing is that arr[] is an automatic variable. Put a
> > "static" in front of it, or move it outside the fun
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:20:52 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Considering that rapiding took about 1200ms (ish - again, cold cache)
> previously, adding even just 250ms is noticeable.
Please excuse my skepticism, but in my experience, that would probably
mean in practice:
... rapiding took about
Mark Janssen writes:
> I love it. Watch this...
>
> [context]
A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say anything
about semantics. So how could this be used to produce executable C code
for a program? BNF is used to produce parsers. But a parser isn't
suff
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:53:07 +, Frank Miles wrote:
[snip C code]
> What you're missing is that arr[] is an automatic variable. Put a
> "static" in front of it, or move it outside the function (to become
> global) and you'll see the difference.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks to everyone who cor
On 2013-10-22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:04:57 +, Dave Angel wrote:
>> but here you go on to say the C code is unsafely skipping
>> initialization, which is not the case.
>
> Are you talking generically, or specifically about the C code
> referenced in the link I gave?
>
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:04:21 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say
anything about semantics. So how could this be used to produce
executable C code for a program? BNF is used to produce parsers. But
a parser isn't sufficient.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:40:32 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:39:42 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>>> No, I was thinking of an array. Arrays aren't automatically
>>> initialised in C.
>>
>> If they are static or global, then _yes_they_are_. They are zeroed.
>
> Not that I
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:39:42 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> >> No, I was thinking of an array. Arrays aren't automatically initialised
> >> in C.
> >
> > If they are static or global, then _yes_they_
On 22/10/2013 17:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:39:42 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
No, I was thinking of an array. Arrays aren't automatically initialised
in C.
If they are static or global, then _yes_they_are_. They are zeroed.
Not that I don't believe you, but do you ha
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:39:42 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> No, I was thinking of an array. Arrays aren't automatically initialised
>> in C.
>
> If they are static or global, then _yes_they_are_. They are zeroed.
Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a reference for this?
Because I kee
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> I love it. Watch this...
>
> [context]
A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say anything
about semantics. So how could this be used to produce executable C code
for a program? BNF is used to produce parser
On 22/10/2013 16:46, Ned Batchelder wrote:
Could you please be less snarky? We're trying to communicate here, and
it is not at all clear yet who is confused and who is not. If you are
interested in discussing technical topics, then discuss them.
--Ned.
Well put, particularly when consideri
Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:55:15 +, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > If you don't implement exec() and eval() then people won't be able to
> > use namedtuples, which are a common datatype factory.
>
> Philip could always supply his own implementation of nam
On 10/22/13 11:04 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
I love it. Watch this...
[context]
A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say anything
about semantics. So how could this be used to produce executable C code
for a program? BNF is used to produce parsers. But a parser isn't
suffici
On 2013-10-22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:04:57 +, Dave Angel wrote:
>
> [...]
>> I agree with most of what you say in the message,
>
> Glad to hear I wasn't completely full of it. As a non-C developer, I'm
> very conscious that a lot of what I know about C is second han
On 2013-10-22, Dave Angel wrote:
> On 22/10/2013 08:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> [quote]
>> C does not require you to set static global arrays to ?0?, so the
>> for loop in the main function can go...
>>
>> Wait a minute... Haskell, I'm pretty sure, zeroes memory. C doesn't. So
>
>
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:04:57 +, Dave Angel wrote:
[...]
> I agree with most of what you say in the message,
Glad to hear I wasn't completely full of it. As a non-C developer, I'm
very conscious that a lot of what I know about C is second hand.
> but here you go on to
> say the C code is u
I love it. Watch this...
[context]
>>> A language specification in BNF is just syntax. It doesn't say anything
>>> about semantics. So how could this be used to produce executable C code
>>> for a program? BNF is used to produce parsers. But a parser isn't
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> A C program is jus
On 22 October 2013 13:00, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:14:16 +0100, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
>> On 22 October 2013 00:41, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that gcc is not a decent compiler?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> If "optimize away
>>> to the null program" is such
On 22/10/2013 08:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:14:16 +0100, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> Here's an example: responding to a benchmark showing a Haskell compiler
> generating faster code than a C compiler, somebody re-wrote the C code
> and got the opposite result:
>
> http
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
