Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: (So-Called) ANSI C Message-ID: <510@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 27 Dec 87 19:56:07 GMT References: <4668@pyr.gatech.EDU> <495@xyzzy.UUCP> <9930@mimsy.UUCP> <228@unicom.UUCP> Organization: Data General, RTP NC. Lines: 27 > physh@unicom.UUCP (Jon 'Quality in - Quantity out' Foreman) > If there is even one instance of a language incompatibilty that > cannot be fixed automatically (without human intervention) in either > direction (old to ANSI), then I will conclude that the ANSI effort was > a failure, since they will have defined a different language than the > one we are all using now. Two points. Based on this criteria, I think it definitely true that Jon must already consider ANSI C a failure. However, on the other hand, it is certainly at least untrue and likely misleading to say that we are currently using "one" C language. There is essentially no way for ANSI to come up with a language that is totally compatible with current usage, because there isn't a single thing for it to be compatible with. Those two poinhts out of the way, it is my personal opinion that dpANS X3J11 innovates far, far to much, and is a little too eager to "clean up" some things in ways that don't really improve their cleanliness. But on the other hand, I don't expect these flaws I perceive will be fatal to the standard, and on balance, dpANS X3J11 is "still C", so to speak. -- To err is human -- to blame the other guy is even more human. --- Solomon Short (quoted by David Gerrold) -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw