Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!wivax!mckeeman
From: mckeeman@wivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: c-sick
Message-ID: <19457@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Apr-84 14:45:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: wivax.19457
Posted: Mon Apr 30 14:45:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 1-May-84 08:08:56 EDT
Sender: mckeeman@wivax.UUCP
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 14

I am sad to see so many human cycles going into the task of
deciphering the C bible, and confessions that "maybe I did
not read it right".  The state of the definition of c is
cause to refuse to use it.

To be constructive, I have a c-lexicon derived from the
MetaWare lexical analyzer that formally answers all these
nit-picky questions in a couple of pages.  Now,
unfortunately, my students and I could not bear to let 019
stand for 17 decimal (and other hacks).  So it really isn't
c.  Is it worth the effort to publish this?  Or is there
already one out there I have missed?

/s/ Bill McKeeman   ...decvax!wivax!mckeeman