Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <6612@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 20 Oct 89 17:28:50 GMT
References: <11337@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14094@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 17

In article <14094@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> Systems programming
> is the one context in which I would insist upon the _most_
> unambiguously designed language available.

If you could force designers to produce a standard hardware architecture
that is unambiguously designed then this would be a worthwhile goal.

Sometimes even C is to large, clumsy, and/or overspecified for some set
of problems. Like, very small embedded controllers.

What does "ERROR=label" mean in an embedded application?
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the      'U`
 participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis" -- Richard Sexton