Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!gwyn@BRL.ARPA
From: gwyn@BRL.ARPA (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  Pointing Float
Message-ID: <707@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 15-Dec-85 19:03:39 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.707
Posted: Sun Dec 15 19:03:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Dec-85 07:24:37 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 13

Add Cottrell to the turkey list if you haven't long ago.

It doesn't matter whether HIS particular compiler has the ability
to avoid unnecessary conversions in the code it generates or
not.  The C implementor may at his discretion do so, so long
as the effect of the code is as prescribed by the language
spec.  In the case of char<->int, many compilers do indeed
take care to avoid unnecessary conversions.  They could do so
for float<->double, if the implementor would take the trouble
(perhaps the Tartan Labs compiler does; I don't know).

When we're discussing general properties of the C language,
appeal to a particular implementation proves nothing.