Re: A note on personal corruption as a result of using C

spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Feb 19, 8:50 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Feb 19, 2:35 am, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Please back this up with a link to the message in question.  You will
then be seen to be right.  Simple.  You need to do this because I
can't find it and that makes me think it does not exist.

You have not replied to my message where I link to the message I
*think* you mean and which then explains where I think your
misunderstanding comes from.  All you have to do is say, "no, not that
one, this one" (with a link).

You weren't the one to post a bubble sort with the repeated evaluation
of a strlen() function in the condition: Clive was,

Why not just post the link?  I can't find it (and I have tried hard).

Why not just stop assuming I'm a fucking liar?

Actually I never did. It is such a weak accusation. I have lied in
the past, and despite my best intentions I will probably do so again
before I die. I am a liar. Most people are. I think you
persistently repeated a claim you can't back up to malign someone
here. Please back it up and I'll stop thinking that.

<snip>
For the last time: Clive has on at least two occasions used an
invariant subexpression within a for as opposed to copying its value
into a temporary variable,

Fine, but not what you claimed above. Change the claim and I'll
change my objection to it. Are you retracting the claim about
strlen() in a bubble sort?

<snip>

--
Ben.
.