| Newsgroups |
comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.python |
| Organization |
A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:25:01 +0000
Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> wibbled:
>On 04/03/2025 10:03, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:57:16 +0000
>> Richard Heathfield <[email protected]> wibbled:
>>> On 04/03/2025 09:23, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> because plenty of compilation issues are caused by code issues.
>>>
>>> Undoubtedly true, and equally undoubtedly irrelevant in this
>>> case. Were it relevant, the OP would by now have shown us the
>>> problem code.
>>
>> So what you're saying is you can't troubleshoot linking problems.
>
>No, that's not what I'm saying. Do learn to read. What I'm saying
Sounds like it to me.
>is that the OP would be better served by posting the problem
>statement in a group more closely related to the actual problem.
Well do feel free to suggest which group might be appropriate for C compilation
issues.
>We may, I trust, presume that the Python source he is building is
>production code that has successfully been built before by other
>people? If so, then it's not a language issue, and that is enough
>to put it beyond comp.lang.c's brief.
There's zero logical connection there. People experience similar issues all
the time with C, should they all be denied help?
>> get someone else to compile your code for you?
>
>I tell the compiler to do it. Don't you?
You sure you don't get someone else to run the compiler for you?
>> Oh dear, if stuck go in circles, posted comparisons conveniently ignored.
>
>Your inability to comprehend analogies does not stop them from
>being valid illustrations of the gaping holes in your "argument"
>(such as it is).
Translation: I have no counter argument worth a damn.
As expected.
>> Is K&R outdated? Hmm, let me think about that for a nanosecond...
>
>So it *is* your claim that...
Their language spec is certainly outdated. You think its current?
>>> that compilation no longer depends on the system you are using
>>> and has now become a language attribute? Can you hear the
>>> chuckles yet?
>
>Laughing my socks off. Time to plonk, perhaps?
Laughing at your own replies now? Well at least we can agree they are
laughable.
>> Wtf has the language standard got to do with anything?
>
>Yep; time to plonk.
Oh dear, really can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag can you so
resort to the standard issue lost the argument last resort of drop-the-mic.
>Bye-bye.
Good riddance.