An actual error found in C: The Complete Nonsense!

[Seebs]

Was browsing this, and stumbled across a comment about his explanation
of structure declarations.

Whaddya know: It had an error. I claimed that the declaration which
completes the structure type was a "definition" rather than a "declaration",
but of course, this is not so; structure types are not defined, but declared.

I've corrected this. Also a couple of pure typos (a missing period, for
instance). Haven't found anything else interesting. Shame no one caught
this earlier, but I guess a single error out of ~100k of HTML isn't *too*
awful.

-s

 

[Malcolm McLean]

Whaddya know:  It had an error.  I claimed that the declaration which
completes the structure type was a "definition" rather than a "declaration",
but of course, this is not so; structure types are not defined, but declared.

The C standard can't legislate over the English language. It can
suggest terms, but they won't always stick.

 

[Keith Thompson]

The C standard can't legislate over the English language. It can
suggest terms, but they won't always stick.

No, it can't, and it doesn't try to. But it's written in English,
and what it can and does do is define the way it uses certain English
words and phrases. The standard defines the term "definition";
that doesn't affect anyone's use of that word in contexts outside C.

The alternatives would be (a) to invent an entirely new term for
each concept (which would make it nearly impossible to read), or
(b) to avoid redefining any terms and leave the whole thing subject
to interpretation.

As much as I complain about the way some terms are defined (or left
undefined), overall it does a good job of presenting the language
definition with reasonable compromises between precision and clarity.

 

[Seebs]

The C standard can't legislate over the English language. It can
suggest terms, but they won't always stick.

But it can correctly define how terms apply to things within the C language,
and the distinction I was drawing between a "declaration" and a "definition"
for a structure type simply does not exist in C. My bad.

-s

 

[Mark Wooding]

But it can correctly define how terms apply to things within the C
language,

Perhaps more precisely: the standard can (and does) contain definitions
for words in the senses used within its own text. By extension, it is
useful to adopt these definitions when discussing the text of the
standard and the programming language it specifies.

-- [mdw]

 

[Seebs]

Perhaps more precisely: the standard can (and does) contain definitions
for words in the senses used within its own text. By extension, it is
useful to adopt these definitions when discussing the text of the
standard and the programming language it specifies.

Yeah. Basically, I was remembering the declare/define distinction roughly
the way "everyone knows" it works, but it doesn't work that way for
structure declarations. (And to show how persistent this is, I actually
typed "defi" before I caught myself.)

-s

 

[Peter Nilsson]

Was browsing this, and stumbled across a comment
about his explanation of structure declarations.

Whilst browsing what? Whose explanation?

How is a first time clc reader supposed to know who
or what you're talking about?

... Shame no one caught this earlier, ...

Perhaps if you hadn't written such trashy diatribe, they
might have.

 

[Seebs]

Whilst browsing what?

C: The Complete Nonsense.

Whose explanation?
Schildt's.

How is a first time clc reader supposed to know who
or what you're talking about?

By searching on the document. If they care, which they may well not.

Perhaps if you hadn't written such trashy diatribe, they
might have.

If you could turn the phrase "trashy diatribe" into a concrete criticsm,
I might be able to address it.

-s

 

[Seebs]

Is this the right URL?:

http://www.seebs.net/c/c_tcn4e.html

It says "Last revision: April 9th, 2010"

You have found a meta-error -- I forgot to update that.

-s

 

[Gene]

I've corrected this.  Also a couple of pure typos (a missing period, for
instance).  Haven't found anything else interesting.  Shame no one caught
this earlier, but I guess a single error out of ~100k of HTML isn't *too*
awful.  

There are more usage problems you might consider fixing. Delete the
comma in

"I wrote about it, in the previous version of this page."

Fix the diction in

"Until, more recently, ..."

by saying instead "Recently, ..."

This is a misuse of the em-dash:

"I spent about a decade on the C committee—and unlike Schildt"

It's cleaner to use two sentences.

"I spent about a decade on the C committee. Unlike Schildt..."

This is semi-colon abuse.

"...no longer the mildly autistic kid who had never really studied
writing or communication; I'm now a mildly autistic adult"

Two sentences are much better. Regarding

"... good grasp on the C language ...,"

most people don't physically seize languages. This is better said

"... good grasp of the C language ..."

More semi-colon abuse appears in "around for comparisons; in some
cases..."

This is misuse of the word "which:"

"They are criticisms of code (or writing) which may well have been
revised two or three times."

Either "which" must be replaced by "that," or a comma must preceed.
The former is better.

More diction problems here:

"This game is easier with the 2nd and 3rd editions, because of the
prevalence of the incorrect void return type for main(),..."

Rather, say

"This game is easier with the 2nd and 3rd editions because the
incorrect void return type for main() is so prevalent,..."

Out of time for more. Hope this helps improve the page.

 

[Seebs]

There are more usage problems you might consider fixing.

I'll look at 'em.

Delete the
comma in

"I wrote about it, in the previous version of this page."

I like it. It's not a correct/incorrect thing; were I speaking the sentence,
I'd pause there.

Fix the diction in

"Until, more recently, ..."

by saying instead "Recently, ..."

I don't see anything wrong with it.

This is a misuse of the em-dash:

"I spent about a decade on the C committee?and unlike Schildt"

It's cleaner to use two sentences.

Could you explain what specific rule you think this breaks?

This is semi-colon abuse.

"...no longer the mildly autistic kid who had never really studied
writing or communication; I'm now a mildly autistic adult"

Two sentences are much better.

I don't see why. I used the semicolon because the two statements are
related.

Regarding

"... good grasp on the C language ...,"

most people don't physically seize languages. This is better said

"... good grasp of the C language ..."

I don't think the preposition matters.

More semi-colon abuse appears in "around for comparisons; in some
cases..."

This is misuse of the word "which:"

"They are criticisms of code (or writing) which may well have been
revised two or three times."

Either "which" must be replaced by "that," or a comma must preceed.
The former is better.

This is not an actual rule of English. I point you to _Style_, by
Joseph M. Williams, who addresses the which/that rule. The rule was
invented in 1906 with no prior art showing it to be the case (see
Chapter 10).

More diction problems here:

I'm not sure what you mean by "diction problems".

Out of time for more. Hope this helps improve the page.

I'm not a big fan of purely stylistic quibbles about English; my
writing voice is intentionally more like spoken language in some
ways (optional commas used to show pauses), and a lot of the
rules people like to quote are made-up rules which do not reflect
historical usage, or add value to the language.

I'm not saying I don't find writing style interesting -- I have read
a fair number of style guides over the years, and I always enjoy
talking about them -- but I am saying that I don't really care whether
something breaks one of the many arbitrary rules people have sometimes
attached to English which do not actually reflect usage.

I've even been known to use the passive voice.

-s

 

[James Harris]

....


I'm not a big fan of purely stylistic quibbles about English; my
writing voice is intentionally more like spoken language in some
ways (optional commas used to show pauses), and a lot of the
rules people like to quote are made-up rules which do not reflect
historical usage, or add value to the language.

The written word can 'flow' pleasingly, much as the spoken word can,
if certain norms are ahdered to. Overall (if you care about the
written form) I would say Gene's suggestions are good ones.

Taking the comma as a case in point, if Gene quoted a complete
sentence the comma in it can be misleading. I had to scan it a few
times thinking I had missed something or misunderstood it. The comma
there suggests a parenthetical inclusion but then the sentence (as
quoted) just stops.

Commas are optional in some places but try as I might I just can't
seem to make that one of them. :-(

If you want the reader to pause a comma is maybe not ideal. Commas can
group written thoughts and, IIRC, they are the only on-the-line
punctuation mark for which a pause is not required when reading.
Depending on context a dash may be appropriate.

I'm not saying I don't find writing style interesting -- I have read
a fair number of style guides over the years, and I always enjoy
talking about them -- but I am saying that I don't really care whether
something breaks one of the many arbitrary rules people have sometimes
attached to English which do not actually reflect usage.

Gene's suggestions are minor changes, it's true, compared with the
substance of the text but most of them seem to me to be helpful.

BTW, if anyone is interested there is newsgroup

alt.usage.english

where discussions of similar issues tend to be well supported in terms
of both quantity and quality.

James

 

[Seebs]

The written word can 'flow' pleasingly, much as the spoken word can,
if certain norms are ahdered to. Overall (if you care about the
written form) I would say Gene's suggestions are good ones.

I do care about it, but style is... well, sometimes a matter of personal
taste. I tend to favor a written style that has flow similar to spoken
style.

Taking the comma as a case in point, if Gene quoted a complete
sentence the comma in it can be misleading. I had to scan it a few
times thinking I had missed something or misunderstood it. The comma
there suggests a parenthetical inclusion but then the sentence (as
quoted) just stops.

Yeah. This is why some people don't use them, and I certainly tend to
a few more commas than I need.

There's an apocryphal story that Oscar Wilde once spent all day writing;
at lunch, someone asked him what he'd done with his morning, and he said he'd
removed a comma. At dinner, he said he'd put it back.

If you want the reader to pause a comma is maybe not ideal. Commas can
group written thoughts and, IIRC, they are the only on-the-line
punctuation mark for which a pause is not required when reading.
Depending on context a dash may be appropriate.

Could be.

Gene's suggestions are minor changes, it's true, compared with the
substance of the text but most of them seem to me to be helpful.

I still have no clue what he meant by a "diction error". I always thought
"diction" was pronunciation.

BTW, if anyone is interested there is newsgroup

alt.usage.english

where discussions of similar issues tend to be well supported in terms
of both quantity and quality.

It's on the list of newsgroups to which I plan to subscribe when I think
of it while I'm at the newsgroup selector list.

-s

 

[Tim Rentsch]

On 2010-11-11, Gene <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip several levels of commentary]

Gene's suggestions are minor changes, it's true, compared with the
substance of the text but most of them seem to me to be helpful.

My impression is that many or most of Gene's suggestions were
either off the mark or just wrong. I do think Seebs's
writing could use some improvement (sorry Peter), even
accepting his style choice of writing informally (which
personally I have no problem with), but the changes suggested
don't IMO have a very good batting average in that regard.

 

[Seebs]

My impression is that many or most of Gene's suggestions were
either off the mark or just wrong. I do think Seebs's
writing could use some improvement (sorry Peter), even
accepting his style choice of writing informally (which
personally I have no problem with), but the changes suggested
don't IMO have a very good batting average in that regard.

I don't at all dispute that my writing could improve. It was the
specific changes I wasn't so sure about. Beloved Spouse is constantly
reminding me that there are plenty of future opportunities to use
commas, so I don't have to use them all now in case we run out later.

-s

 

[James Harris]

....

There's an apocryphal story that Oscar Wilde once spent all day writing;
at lunch, someone asked him what he'd done with his morning, and he said he'd
removed a comma.  At dinner, he said he'd put it back.

I think I make the same amount of progress some days.

....

I still have no clue what he meant by a "diction error".  I always thought
"diction" was pronunciation.

So did I. I just remembered to check:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=diction&ls=a

Looks like he's right here too. For example, "the choice of words used
in a speech or piece of writing."

James

 

[Seebs]

So did I. I just remembered to check:

Looks like he's right here too. For example, "the choice of words used
in a speech or piece of writing."

Ah-hah. Now if only there'd been any hint as to what was specifically
wrong with those words...

-s

 

[Chad]

I don't at all dispute that my writing could improve.  It was the
specific changes I wasn't so sure about.  Beloved Spouse is constantly
reminding me that there are plenty of future opportunities to use
commas, so I don't have to use them all now in case we run out later.

<off topic>
So I guess spinoza was wrong when he said that you were gay.
</off topic>

 

[Kenny McCormack]

<off topic>
So I guess spinoza was wrong when he said that you were gay.
</off topic>

I don't see how that follows. So-called "gay marriage" is becoming
increasingly common nowadays.