"Also sprach Jonathan Wakely:" > > On 7 February 2018 at 16:34, Peter T. Breuer wrote: > > I'll repeat the paragraph from my summary this morning. > > Please don't, your sophistry is still off-topic. Repeating it doesn't Kindly explain why explaining is off-topic in your opinion. > make it any less so. Sophistry \Soph"ist*ry\, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.] The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.] [1913 Webster] Correct. I am exact, which is the minimum anyone can be. > The insight you finally gave me credit for wasn't even mine It is. Kindly point to somebody who says it before you? For example, I see from you Tue 16.45: You've already been told that 6.5.7 says "The integer promotions are performed on each of the operands. " and says nothing about conversions. which is not it. Either you still don't get what IT is, or ... I don't know. To give you the clue, here is my response (my caps) at 20.11: I see nothing that says that conversions should NOT be applied to their operators. Got it yet? Here is where you did give the clue. I'll help again with caps: > What, specifically, do you see in 6.5.7 that allows the > conversion specified by the general rule of conversions > > If one operand has an unsigned type T whose conversion rank is > at least as high as that of the other operand's type, then the other > operand is converted to type T. > > NOT to be applied? > > BECAUSE it doesn't say they are applied. As I pointed out in Get it? You finally exposed your REASONING, for the very first and only time. That single instance of displayed reasoning was enough for me. You could have saved yourself you had merely gone to that ordinary length beforehand, but no. > originally, but as I'd also said in an earlier mail, you aren't paying > attention. Too busy stroking yourself for being so clever. I am not clever! Just ordinary! > Now please go away, you tedious fart. Pot. PTB
