Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!laidbak!guardian
From: guardian@laidbak.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 'C' Standards
Message-ID: <1160@laidbak.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Sep-87 09:35:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: laidbak.1160
Posted: Thu Sep 24 09:35:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 14:39:04 EDT
References: <166@qetzal.UUCP> <157@hobbes.UUCP> <875@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2514@xanth.UUCP> <28862@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: guardian@laidbak.UUCP (Harry Skelton(E))
Organization: LAI Chicago
Lines: 25
Keywords: confused
Summary: To fix 'C' or to use 'C'

Should not 'C' Standards cover what will currently work with 'C' rather than
trying to re-write 'C' ?   Maybe we should open up a Subject of "Setting 'C'
Standards" to cover what should be included in new versions of the 'C'
compiler.

update:

The document/book I am working on covers what is defined in various 
'C' environments as well as what 'kludges' are needed to work on other 
'brain damaged' 'C' systems.  I have the manuals for Sun, AT&T, 
IBM (AT/PC Class), Sequent, and various micro 'C' manuals.  If anyone 
would like to donate information on problems or hidden features of certain 
compilers, please e-mail the information to: ihnp4!laidbak!guardian.  

Manuals will also be accepted.  All information recieved will be noted as 
comming from the originator.

(yeah, it's gonna' take a while...)

                          .---------.
Harry Skelton             :   .-.   : --- other mail drops ---
guardian@laidbak.UUCP     :   `-'o  : ihnp4!laidbak!ugh!bear
ihnp4!laidbak!guardian    :    O    : ihnp4!chinet!guardian
                          `---------' 
"I thought about it, then I figured out that it was not worth thinking about."