Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (So-Called) ANSI C
Message-ID: <6925@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 6 Jan 88 00:45:06 GMT
References: <4668@pyr.gatech.EDU> <495@xyzzy.UUCP> <9930@mimsy.UUCP> <228@unicom.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <228@unicom.UUCP> unicom!physh writes:
>..., 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.

I would be interested in seeing the portable language specification
for the language you think we're "all" using now!  I think if there
were such a well-defined language, X3J11 would have had a much
simpler job.