Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: How ANSI is Apollo's cc 6.7 (SR 10.2)
Message-ID: <13832@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 12 Sep 90 19:38:42 GMT
References: <13798@smoke.BRL.MIL> <17963@haddock.ima.isc.com> <13827@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <13827@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>put users of Apollo's supposedly standard C implementation in a bind in
>some cases.  (Ignoring the even greater bind it would put the Apollo
>implementors in, because they deserve it.)

Since according to Steve's posting that just arrived here, the reported
"standard conformance" wasn't supposed to be advertised as such, and that
all the problems are fixed in the forthcoming (October) release, feel free
to ignore the small dig at Apollo C implementors.  They seem to have done
all right after all..