Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!umd5!uvaarpa!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: (So-Called) ANSI C Message-ID: <505@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 23 Dec 87 20:17:29 GMT References: <4668@pyr.gatech.EDU> <495@xyzzy.UUCP> <9930@mimsy.UUCP> Organization: Data General, RTP NC. Lines: 29 > chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) >>In other words, give me some example of "existing C programs broken" by >>the draft standard. I'm not aware of any interesting cases. > vs. : Both define `va_start', but the one in > takes one parameter, while the one in takes two. > I think the macros in should have different names. > could then be implemented in terms of Um.... Perhaps I'm being unusually dense today, but in what way is this an example of the draft C standard conformant compilers breaking existing code? This seems more like an issue of convenient implementation of varargs.h (which is not mentioned in the standard). The standard doesn't prevent its implementation, it just makes it difficult to mix old code that uses varargs.h and new code that uses stdargs.h. Which is not an issue of supporting old code, but a restriction on new code. Unless, as I say, I'm being unusually dense today. Which is NOT to imply that I disagree with Chris about what the standard ought to have been done with stdarg.h. I agree with him. I just don't see that it breaks existing code. -- There are some forms of insanity which, driven to an ultimate expression, can become new models of sanity. --- Bureau of Sabotage {Frank Herbert} -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw