Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Want the word on __STDC__
Message-ID: <15413@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 10 Mar 91 20:12:34 GMT
References: <668288453.3046@mindcraft.com> <2986@cirrusl.UUCP> <1991Mar7.194733.18150@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <1991Mar7.194733.18150@watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterw@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>The failure to fully define __STDC__ was obviously a mistake,
>and some vendors have thoroughly abused it.
>Perhaps the next version of the standard could denegrate __STDC__
>and introduce a new definition, say something like
>   #define __ANSI_X3_159__ 1989

The real problem is that the standard can constrain only the behavior
of CONFORMING implementations; nonconforming implementations can do
whatever they please, including pretending to be standard conformant.

Your suggestions did not address this fundamental problem any better
than the existing specification for __STDC__ did.  I am of the opinion
that there is no method by which any standard could solve the problem.