Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond
From: diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Casting Function Pointers
Message-ID: <1991May27.003536.25876@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 27 May 91 00:35:36 GMT
References: <1145@mwtech.UUCP> <1991May24.005025.7714@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <16259@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System)
Reply-To: diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 19

In article <16259@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <1991May24.005025.7714@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
>>There are a few errors and inconsistencies in K&R-I.  And actually I'm waiting
>>for K&R-III, because the proposed standard changed a little bit after K&R-II
>>and before finalization.
>
>I'm not aware of any changes between the final draft of K&R2 (first printing)
>and the official C standard that would make K&R2 less correct; however, there
>was at least one change that made K&R2 more nearly correct.

dmr posted a list of changes about two years ago.  I'm not sure if I have it
in the portion of a damaged tape that might be recoverable.  (Warning about
backups:  when you make tapes on two different machines, in case one machine
might be misaligned or otherwise make tapes that no one else can read ...
well, dual redundancy might not be enough.)
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.