Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!umnd-cs!umn-cs!meccts!viper!john
From: john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: gnuplot (is there life after Megamax 1.1?)
Message-ID: <868@viper.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-Apr-87 03:29:38 EST
Article-I.D.: viper.868
Posted: Sun Apr 19 03:29:38 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Apr-87 17:57:13 EST
References: <461@cernvax.UUCP> <813@viper.UUCP> <8640@watrose.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley)
Distribution: world
Organization: DynaSoft Systems
Lines: 31
Keywords: gnuplot, megamax, bugs

In article <8640@watrose.UUCP> jsgray@watrose.UUCP (Jan Gray) writes:
 >
 >Excuse me, but it is a bug. K&R p. 188: "When applied to an array, the
 >result is the total number of bytes in the array."

  Enough already...  This subject has been flogged to death...  The
ANSI answer appears to be yours.  I've made it a point not to use
the construct on string constants just because I've run into more
than one compiler where it didn't work that way...  I tend to use
a static and take the sizeof that (which works 99% of the time...)

 >  What sort of consulting do you do?

  A great deal of consulting that requires the things I do to work
on almost any compiler or machine.  From experience I've learned to
avoid using things that compiler writers tend to twist, bend or
otherwise screw up on.  This happens to be one of those.

  Since I've found situations where either answer is "the way things
work" ("correct" or not...), I over reacted when whoever it was
stated that his compiler was "wrong".  If he continues to use that 
construct and assumes that it will work (until ANSI regins supreme) 
he will probably get burnt when he trys to port it to some-machine 
some-day.

  Good enough?

--- 
John Stanley (john@viper.UUCP)
Software Consultant - DynaSoft Systems
UUCP: ...{amdahl,ihnp4,rutgers}!{meccts,dayton}!viper!john