Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Expression sequencing/\"standards\"
Message-ID: <634@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 14:08:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.634
Posted: Tue Oct 14 14:08:29 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Oct-86 23:17:43 EDT
References: <4527@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Lines: 26

> rbbb@rice.edu (David Chase)
>> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)

>> I find that the Three Holy Documents of C (K&R, H&S, the draft ANSI
>> standard) are a little muddy on this point,

> If the "standard language definition" is ambiguous, then it isn't a
> definition.  Have them clean up the definition.  In this case, having an
> answer is much more important than which answer you have.

If you can find me a definition of *anything* (in English, of comparable
complexity to a general purpose computer programming language) which is
unambiguous, then I'll eat the manual this description printed in.
Applying this overly rigid restriction on the meaning of "definition", I
doubt you can find a "definition" of any programming language at all.

However, in a suitable diluted form, I agree with David's point.  On the
other hand, I do think that progress is being made.  H&S is clearer than
K&R on this point, and the draft ANSI C standard is clearer still.

--
Perfection must be reached by degrees;
she requires the slow hand of time.
                                --- Voltaire
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw