Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Types
Message-ID: <471@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Aug-87 22:04:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.471
Posted: Wed Aug  5 22:04:19 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 11:09:20 EDT
References: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA> <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> <293@osupyr.UUCP> <847@haddock.ISC.COM>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 22
Summary: Wait a second... you've got a logical fallacy here.

>My dpANS gives no such notion as a "strictly conforming compiler".  (strictly
>conforming PROGRAM, yes).  It says:  "A conforming hosted implementation
>shall accept any strictly conforming program.", and thus [an asm-extended
>compiler] is not a "conforming hosted implementation".  I.e. not ANSI C.

Let "A Conforming Hosted Implementation" be A
Let "Accepts a Strictly Conforming Program" be B
Let "Accepts a Non-conforming Program" be C

Your first statement now becomes A => B.

This allows you to state !B => !A, that is, if it doesn't accept a strictly
conforming program, it's not a conforming hosted implementatio.

It doesn't say anything about C. You can't say C => !A, nor !C => !A.

You're confusing "accepts a non-conforming program" with "doesn't accept
a conforming program".

Or else you didn't include all the relevent facts in your article.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)