Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!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: <6675@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 25 Oct 89 16:09:58 GMT
References: <6658@ficc.uu.net> <14114@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 53

In article <14114@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> From article <6658@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva):
> > [...]                                      That's why Ansi C is a reality,

> The C standard has been through 3 public reviews and is presently facing
> a class-action suit.  It is still not an official standard.  This does
> not qualify as "a reality" in my book.

Compare it to X3J3.

> I post articles in opposition to the view widely promoted in this newsgroup
> that C as it currently exists is _already_ the language of the future.

I've been trying to come up with a response to this statement that is
sufficiently polite that I won't get redirected to alt.flame, while at
the same time at least vaguely expressing my reaction to this statement.
Either your comp.lang.c feed comes from an alternate universe, or you're
so irrationally opposed to the language that you're seeing things.

> C users aren't looking toward automobiles _or_ mechanical horses but are
> maintaining that there's no need to advance past their plug of a horse.

Right now the roads aren't good enough for automobiles, and we can't afford
to buy helicopters.

So, what's the systems programming language of this century? Assembler?

	DATA I /0/
	J = I * GETCH(5)
	J = 0 * GETCH(6)

--> Is this legal?                                    [YES]

Thank you.

--> Is it guaranteed that GETCH(5) will be evaluated? [No - as far as I know]
--> Is it guaranteed that GETCH(6) will be evaluated? ["    "   "  "  "  "  ]

Is there any guarantee that either of these will not be evaluated?

> As far as the above example goes, it is a mistake for the rules of Fortran
> to behave in the manner implied.  That doesn't excuse C of any of its
> failings.  It simply means that Fortran has some of its own.

You say that X3J11 is the only standard which allowed ambiguous constructs.

Looks like that statement is inoperative.

-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"That particular mistake will not be repeated.  There are plenty of        'U`
 mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)