Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!neuro1!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: Re: c programming style - READ THIS
Message-ID: <472@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 07:13:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.472
Posted: Mon Aug 19 07:13:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 02:27:55 EDT
References: <11570@brl-tgr.ARPA> <935@teddy.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 20

> Well, then, he must have changed his mind at some point, considering that
> K&R says "++<something>" is the same as "<something> += 1".  As you'd have
> known if you'd read the article you were replying to, the article was
> referring to K&R not to a particular compiler written by R; the former may
> not be a great standard but it's a lot closer to a standard than the
> behavior of one particular compiler.
> 
> 	Guy Harris

Since the behaviour of Ritchie compiler was used to resolve certain
ambiguities in K&R, it has to be considered part of the definition.
It's unfortunate that they never tried running Appendix A through YACC,
but them's the breaks. I guess the fact that YACC probably didn't exist
at the time of writing might have something to do with it.

Dennis? Can you confirm or deny this?
-- 
	Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva
		UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
		MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076