Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:32730 comp.std.c:3727 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: To ANSI or not to ANSI (was: Re: Just a minor new twist on free()) Message-ID: <1990Oct9.170709.7798@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 17:07:09 GMT In article pds@lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith) writes: >I understand that many people do not as yet have an ANSI-compliant >compiler, but is really a valid reason for those of us who do to >continue to eschew important enhancements to the language in order to >continue to interoperate with the "lowest common denominator" C >implementations? This depends entirely on how much you care about portability. Achieving real portability today requires acknowledging that pre-ANSI compilers are still in wide use and will not disappear overnight. This situation is a fact; wishing, e.g. arguing about whether it is "valid", will not change it. You either live in the real world or you don't. Refusing to live in the real world will substantially reduce the portability of your code. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry