Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Frustrated trying to be portable
Message-ID: <4339@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 10 Mar 91 08:13:03 GMT
References: <15333@smoke.brl.mil> <4204@lupine.NCD.COM> <19085@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 29

In article <19085@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
|In article <4204@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
|>In article <15333@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
|>+It isn't necessary.  If the application requires library functions
|>+that are required for a hosted implementation but not for a
|>+freestanding implementation, then it couldn't survive being told
|>+that it is being compiled by a freestanding implementation anyway.
|>
|>I think that you have just assumed away a very real problem.
|>
|>Look.  I have a program which can work, and which can do useful things
|>even within an environment which only conforms to "standalone" subset
|>of ANSI C.
|
|I have to side with Ron on this one...

I just wanted to let it be known that I certainly didn't mean to start
choosing up sides.  If we are going to do that, I think I wanna be on
Doug Gwyn's team.  He's an awfully knowledgeable guy when it comes to
ANSI C, and he has helped me many times by answering my (sometimes silly)
questions.

(I do reserve the right to start an occasional friendly disagreement with
him however.)
-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// New motto:  If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.