Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!usc!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (* func)(fred, bert)
Message-ID: <11664@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 22 Nov 89 16:32:56 GMT
References: <2387@stl.stc.co.uk> <744@lakart.UUCP> <0175@sheol.UUCP> <812@bbm.UUCP> <11592@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1113@cirrusl.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <1113@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In article <11592@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>However, your code is not portable.
>The great portable-as-boolean fallacy again.

No, that's your fallacy.

>His code is less than 100.000% portable, but it is probably more than
>99.999% portable.

Since 100% portability is achievable just as readily as a lower
degree of confidence (nowhere near 99%, by whatever meaningful
metric one could devise), why recommend other than perfection
in this case?  Bad habits should be discouraged as a matter of
practical principle.