Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nbires!hao!gatech!pyr!roy
From: roy@pyr.gatech.EDU (Roy Mongiovi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (So-Called) ANSI C
Message-ID: <4735@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: 8 Jan 88 05:55:30 GMT
References: <4668@pyr.gatech.EDU> <495@xyzzy.UUCP> <9930@mimsy.UUCP> <6970@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lines: 43

In article <6970@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> First, try sometime to define the universal common subset of existing
> C implementations, and see what it leaves you.  I'm not sure it even
> can be done, but there sure wouldn't be enough left to be worth putting
> into a standard.  One nice thing about ANSI C is that it is a rather
> rich development environment, including almost all the C library
> routines that I regularly need (but can't always count on finding).


Does the Pascal "standard" contain all the bells and whistles that have
been added to the various versions of Pascal that exist?  No, it certainly
does not.  Are there lots and lots of things that you just can't do with
standard Pascal?  Yes, there certainly are.

I never said that producing a strict subset of all existing C compilers
would yield a viable standard.  I simply said that I see this as the goal
of a standard.  It's most definitely NOT the time to start fixing what
you perceive as the problems with the language.  Fixing problems with
languages is a fulfilling and neverending occupation, but it results in
new (and hopefully better) languages, not in standards for EXISTING
languages.

I like library routines.  I think ANSI C should have all the library
routines anyone has ever considered useful.  I do object, however, to
the changes in the SYNTAX of the language.  I don't care who perceives
it as a problem, it was there in the language as designed, and I don't
see the standardization process as the time for fixing those sorts of
things.  That should have happened much earlier in the lifetime of the
language.

While they're at it, why don't they fix up operator precedence and the
stupid "=" versus "==" typo in if's.  It really gripes me that the
statement "if (value & mask == pattern)" doesn't mean what you'd think.
Certainly that's something that could be adjusted relatively painlessly.
And don't you think that typing "if (x = y)" when you meant "if (x == y)"
is a pretty common mistake?  Maybe assignment should be changed to ":="
while there's still time!

	:-)
-- 
Roy J. Mongiovi     System Support Specialist     Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology		Atlanta GA  30332.	(404) 894-4660
	...!{allegra, amd, hplabs, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy