Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrstp!npdiss1!mercer From: mercer@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Seven Original Sins of K&R (Long) Message-ID: <622@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM> Date: 5 Oct 90 19:06:59 GMT References: <1990Oct2.040019.1635@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Reply-To: mercer@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer) Organization: StPaul Lines: 32 In article <1990Oct2.040019.1635@ccu.umanitoba.ca> salomon@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dan Salomon) writes: :In article vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) writes: :> I don't know about this. There are (unfortunately) still so many :> pre-ANSI compilers and so much pre-ANSI code (not to mention code that :> depends on the existence of the other "sins" that you mentioned) in use :> that it would be ridiculous for the time being to abandon backward :> compatibility. : :Much more code is going to be written in C than currently exists. :Should we sacrifice all the code to come for the sake of the existing :code? :-- : :Dan Salomon -- salomon@ccu.UManitoba.CA Regardless of what changes are made to the language there will always be problems for some in living within the languages limitations. The skill of a programmer is in coping with those difficulties. You cannot abandon previously written code and expect people to upgrade. However, not all the changes proposed would affect previously written code. For instance, implementation of a break label; capability would not affect previously written code. As for myself, I am more comfortable using flags (after getting burned by a nasty bug in PL1 code I wrote breaking out of a label). -- Dan Mercer Reply-To: mercer@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer) "MAN - the only one word oxymoron in the English Language"