Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pascal to C (and vice versa)
Message-ID: <11016@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 27 Oct 89 00:41:26 GMT
References: <5164@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <4640@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <20355@mimsy.umd.edu> <10999@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <6684@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: diamond@riks. (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 25

In article <6684@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

>it's a quality-of-implementation consideration
>This is a different order of magnitude than only allowing one function-like
>macro. A Pascal that does not allow !set of char! is atill quite usable.
>For what it's worth, I've never seen !set of char! used in a Pascal program,
>out of the old Berkeley pi/px compiler, UCSD, a couple of micro cross-
>compilers, and Turbo (which is to Pascal as Ratfor is to Fortran-77). I
>know that at least one of the micro systems didn't allow it (probably both,
>they were from the same vendor), and neither did UCSD.

The days when micro Pascal compilers didn't support SET OF CHAR were
before the days when micro C compilers didn't support float.  Sure, a
C compiler that didn't support float was still quite usable.

However, as a quality of implementation issue, any compiler that does
not support SET OF CHAR has as few sales as any compiler that does not
support two function-like macros, and their respective standards
committees are not going to come to the defense of either of them.

-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corp. (diamond%ws.sony.junet@uunet.uu.net seems to work)
  Should the preceding opinions be caught or     |  James Bond asked his
  killed, the sender will disavow all knowledge  |  ATT rep for a source
  of their activities or whereabouts.            |  licence to "kill".