Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: problem with cc compiler
Message-ID: <3109@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 30 Jul 89 07:51:38 GMT
References: <712@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> <10589@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1185@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> <3100@scolex.sco.COM> <10620@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: seanf@scolex.UUCP (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 23

In article <10620@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>If K&R first edition is to be accepted as a standard, then why not K&R
>second edition?  I think you're just being silly.  Everyone knew the
>context of the discussion.

Yes, I was being somewhat silly.  However, your response, at a time when
there is not a *single* ANSI-compliant C compiler (partially because there
*is* not an ANSI C standard) was on the order of "Well, you can't do that,
nyah nyah nyah."  I've been seeing too much of that, and it's really not a
useful response.

Then again, this probably isn't, either 8-).

C related notice:  has anybody but myself noticed that the current dpANS
does not seem to require that the implementation-dependent (or defined)
options can change between modules?  Provided everything works, there is no
reason why, for example, sizeof(int) in one module could be 2, and 4 in
another (again, provided everything works properly with the libraries...).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  |    "Uhm, excuse me..."
seanf@sco.UUCP   |      -- James T. Kirk (William Shatner), ST V: TFF
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.