Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Signed bit fields
Message-ID: <3177@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Aug-83 01:04:24 EDT
Article-I.D.:    utzoo.3177
Posted: Sun Aug 28 01:04:24 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Aug-83 01:04:24 EDT
References: <1945@utcsrgv.UUCP>, <1740@allegra.UUCP>, <3154@utzoo.UUCP>, <1743@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 18


Alan Driscoll observes:

	If many C implementations botch bit fields, that's still no reason
	to avoid them.  Sounds like a reason to get a better compiler...

Sorry, Alan, but this is another manifestation of the self-centered,
"I'm-all-right-Jack" attitude that enrages people who are trying to
actually *use* other folks' "portable" software.  If my software is
being written only for use at my installation, OK.  But if it's being
written for export, then it is important for me to realize that there
are a lot of compilers out there that botch bitfields, and that it is
not in my power to change this.  This is ugly and unpleasant, but it's
the way the world is.  By its nature, writing highly portable software
involves accepting a lowest-common-denominator environment.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry