Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!guy
From: guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: "Vectorizing C compiler for the Cray"
Message-ID: <2133@sun.uucp>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 03:37:05 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.2133
Posted: Wed Apr 24 03:37:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 08:23:27 EST
References: <486@lll-crg.ARPA> <515@lll-crg.ARPA> <1635@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 25

brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) writes:
> A committee ... is implementing the full C language with one minor
> modification.  In order to have compatibility with Fortran all subroutine
> parameters will be passed by address.

10 million readers write something on the order of:

> "minor" modification?  You've got to be out of your cotton-pickin' minds!
> That's not C any more!

Somebody else then writes:

> As a consultant to the above committee, I should mention that, in fact,
> TWO minor modifications to standard C semantics were proposed: ...
> and another ... we are adding "equivalence" as a valid storage class.

OK.  Would Mr. Brooks, or somebody else associated with the first and/or
third postings, please settle once and for all whether this was an April
Fool's joke or not?  The combination of the two proposed changes reads to
*me* like such a joke; I think it was even posted around April 1.  However,
either 1) it's not a joke or 2) a hell of a lot of readers didn't get the
joke.  If it is a joke, would somebody confirm it so we can stop debating
the merits of such a change to the language?

	Guy Harris