From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

Keith Thompson <[email protected]> writes:

Tim Rentsch <[email protected]> writes:

Keith Thompson <[email protected]> writes:

Tim Rentsch <[email protected]> writes:
[...]

typedef size_t Z;
typedef _Bool B;

[...]

Why do you do this? I find that it makes the code more difficult
to read.

The reaction from Lew Pitcher was "Brilliant!". The reaction from
DFS was "I think he knocked it out of the park." Because Lew and
DFS (and to some extent Michael S) are the ones who had expressed
an interest in my counter challenge, they were my target audience.
So from my point of view there is no reason to be dissatisfied with
what was posted.

You are of course not obligated to answer, but surely it would be easier
not to post a followup at all.

I'm baffled by your comment. You asked a question. I didn't
have any reason to think the question was rhetorical. I had
something to say in response. I posted it. As to the last
point, surely it would have been easier if you had not posted
your comments either. And yet you did.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

Tim Rentsch <[email protected]> writes:

Keith Thompson <[email protected]> writes:

Tim Rentsch <[email protected]> writes:

Keith Thompson <[email protected]> writes:

Tim Rentsch <[email protected]> writes:
[...]

typedef size_t Z;
typedef _Bool B;

[...]

Why do you do this? I find that it makes the code more difficult
to read.

The reaction from Lew Pitcher was "Brilliant!". The reaction from
DFS was "I think he knocked it out of the park." Because Lew and
DFS (and to some extent Michael S) are the ones who had expressed
an interest in my counter challenge, they were my target audience.
So from my point of view there is no reason to be dissatisfied with
what was posted.

You are of course not obligated to answer, but surely it would be easier
not to post a followup at all.

I'm baffled by your comment. You asked a question. I didn't
have any reason to think the question was rhetorical. I had
something to say in response. I posted it. As to the last
point, surely it would have been easier if you had not posted
your comments either. And yet you did.

You responded, but you didn't answer. I still don't know why you
wrote those typedefs, nor do I know why you chose not to answer
my direct question.

I'm still slightly curious why you would use (IMHO) silly names
like Z and B (that was the specific questio I asked), but I'm no
longer asking you to explain.

I'll try to cut back on asking you why you write things.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) [email protected]
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2