Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ukma!gatech!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: what C needs
Message-ID: <1376@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 88 13:24:05 GMT
References: <8712241909.AA03710@decwrl.dec.com> <143@snark.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 18

In article <143@snark.UUCP>, eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
> In article <1759@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> >Another interesting thing about Pascal that ANSI might want to
> >consider is the idea of a level 0 ... and a level 1 [compiler].

>                              Look what happened to ISO Pascal as a result --
> half the compiler vendors supported only the crippled level 0 and... the
> other half mixed ... level 1 ... with their own extensions.

BUT, level 0 pascal WAS crippled. Level 0 'C' is a superset of existing 'C'
compilers. Not only is it not crippled, it's better than what we have now.

ALSO, the 'C' compiler market is highly competitive. The first level 0
compilers WILL be quickly replaced by level 1 compiler, at least for the
vendors wanting to stay in business.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.