Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!topgun.dspo.gov!lanl!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Uninitialized externals and statics
Message-ID: <10872@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 29 Aug 89 20:17:58 GMT
References: <2128@infmx.UUCP> <4700042@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1989Aug25.185428.3511@utzoo.uucp> <609@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <10831@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1392@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> <10859@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1403@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <1403@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu.UUCP (John Hascall) writes:
>If a standard is so broad as to include everything is it still a standard?

This question is phrased misleadingly.  X3.159 is not a computer architecture
standard; it is a C programming language standard.  Certainly it should
accommodate the widest feasible range of those factors that it cannot
constrain, so long as the utility of the language is not significantly
reduced thereby.