Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!rutgers!mcnc!xanth!kent
From: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 'C' Standards
Message-ID: <2471@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Sep-87 04:21:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.2471
Posted: Thu Sep 17 04:21:16 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 14:22:49 EDT
References: <166@qetzal.UUCP> <157@hobbes.UUCP> <875@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 23
Keywords: consistency
Summary: Huh?

In article <6422@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <1141@laidbak.UUCP> guardian@laidbak.UUCP writes:
>>If you want to set a standard, how about just saying what will work under
>>certain conditions and under different versions of an OS.
>
>That information might be useful for some purposes, but it cannot
>replace true standards.  The essential problem requiring standards
>is that software developers cannot really afford to take into
>account the uncontrolled vagaries of all past, present, and future
>operating systems.

Huh?  But the standards committee has been defending to the death its right
to take into account the uncontrolled vagaries of all past, present, and
future computing hardware.  I must be missing something here.

Kent, the man from xanth.

"His expression lit up.  'Hey, you wouldn't be a dope smuggler, would you?'

Rail looked confused.  'Why would anyone wish to smuggle stupidity when
there is so much of it readily available?'"

		-- Alan Dean Foster, GLORY LANE