CBFalconer said:
Note the underlined "mentioned here". That refers to c.l.c, where
the language is specified by the C standard.
Your original claim the code would not work was not qualified in that
fashion, and it is that claim which I was objecting to. If you had said
"It won't work on all systems", I would have had no objections. It's the
claim that "It won't", without any qualifications to limit the supposed
applicability of that statement, that makes it a lie.
If this was another
newsgroup, I would have no comment or objection. As long as the
post is on c.l.c I consider it should remain reasonably close to
topical.
Lying about what's wrong with the code won't do anything to improve
topicality. What's wrong with that code is that it will indeed work on
some systems, but not on others. Claiming that the problem is that it
simply won't work is clearly wrong, because it can easily be verified
that it will work, on the system it is intended to be used on. This
leaves people to wonder whether your claim a lie, or simple
incompetence. Those of us who monitor this newsgroup regularly know that
you routinely lie in this fashion in a bizarre attempt to express (very
badly) the fact that an issue is off-topic. However, newbies can be
forgiven for assuming that incompetence is the more likely explanation.
I originally simply pointed out to Navia that the code
would not function, and quoted the standard portion that defined
the reason. Now you are expanding it into accusations of lying.
It will function, it just won't do so portably; and I'm fairly certain
that you are actually aware of that fact, so claiming that it simply
won't function is a lie.