W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-lib@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: w3c-libwww-5.2.8-7 bug report

From: Rob Corell <rcorell@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:54:03 -0600
To: "Desrochers, Gary" <Gary.Desrochers@fmr.com>, "'Jean-Christophe Touvet'" <jct@EdelWeb.fr>, "Manuele Kirsch Pinheiro" <Manuele.Kirsch_Pinheiro@inrialpes.fr>
Cc: "David Binderman" <d.binderman@virgin.net>, <www-lib@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GAEJIKMBCAHPIPCILJJIAEEMDBAA.rcorell@adobe.com>
> Not a very scientific approach: "it works with 2 compilers, thus it
>must be correct" ;-)

	Oh, come on.  We're not scientists, thank goodness.  I, personally, would
hate to do all that research, apply for grants, teach undergrads, and
publish papers.  Bleah.  If all our tools meet their specifications as we
understand them, I'm fine with that.

	To be even less scientific (but more the engineer I actually am), I think
the most potent argument for ignoring those warnings is still: "You're not
using gopher.  Or PICS.".

	-Rob


P.S. It does my heart good to see people actually talking on this list.  I'm
basing Adobe's general web comm package on libwww and I was surprised and
somewhat terrified to find out (from Henrik!) that the project is
stagnant/dying.  I'm glad there's a quorum of you out there that actually
still cares about this project.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-lib-request@w3.org [mailto:www-lib-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Desrochers, Gary
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:29 AM
> To: 'Jean-Christophe Touvet'; Manuele Kirsch Pinheiro
> Cc: Rob Corell; David Binderman; www-lib@w3.org
> Subject: RE: w3c-libwww-5.2.8-7 bug report
>
>
> Hmmm... Don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion on this but
> I don't get why you "concluded" that "i = ++i;" is undefined in K&R "C".
> I have the Kernighan an Ritchie book sitting in front of me and it does
> describe what would happen with the expression "x = ++i;" and "x = i++;".
> In the lexical language reference of K&R "C" in the same book it does
> not care what is on the left of the "=" operator during the right hand
> evaluation.  It should not care either since it is always performed
> after the expression on the right is evaluated. The expression "x = ++x;"
> is the same as "x = x + 1;" or "x++;" or "++x;" or "x = x = x + 1;".  The
> difference is an expression which is considered an lvalue and one that is
> not.
>
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Christophe Touvet [mailto:jct@EdelWeb.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:48 AM
> To: Manuele Kirsch Pinheiro
> Cc: Rob Corell; David Binderman; www-lib@w3.org
> Subject: Re: w3c-libwww-5.2.8-7 bug report
>
>
>
> > I don't know if this statement is realy undefined in ANSI C, but it
> > works as expected when using an ANSI C compiler (I did a little test to
> > confirm it and it works ok in GNU C and Sun Workshop C compilers) .
> > Indeed, using GNU C compiler over Red Hat 7.1, I didn't have any of the
> > warning messages that David has using Compaq C compiler over the same
> > plataform...
> > So, I think we may safely ignore those warnings... :)
>
>  Not a very scientific approach: "it works with 2 compilers, thus it
> must be correct" ;-)
>
>  However, mea culpa: I remembered the K&R example "a[i] = i++;" and
> concluded that "i = ++i;" whould be undefined. Maybe it is under a
> strict language interpretation (which would explain Compaq compiler
> warning), but I admit that, while inelegant, I don't see how it could
> give another result than expected.
>
>  Sorry,
>
>     -JCT-
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 10:57:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:18:40 GMT