Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!orca!ruby!rjg
From: rjg@ruby.TEK.COM (Rich Greco)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MAJOR ANSI C FLAW (my opinion, of course)
Message-ID: <410@ruby.TEK.COM>
Date: Thu, 15-Oct-87 21:19:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ruby.410
Posted: Thu Oct 15 21:19:15 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Oct-87 10:56:00 EDT
References: <1132@gilsys.UUCP> <1246@bsu-cs.UUCP> <6543@brl-smoke.ARPA> <104@aimt.UUCP> <407@ruby.TEK.COM> <6564@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: rjg@ruby.UUCP (Rich Greco)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR
Lines: 12

In responding to my article gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:

>  You just have to be careful not to
>require something which breaks conformance to the spec; longer extern
>significance does not.

This conflicts with my understanding, and clearly conflicts with the
guidelines followed by the X3H3 bindings comittie.  They are unable to
require anything above the minimal conforming language definition for
the bindings which come out of their comittie.

Anyone from X3H3 on the net who can clarify this?