Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!agate!eris!mwm From: mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Why I won't use ANSI C Message-ID: <6737@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 27 Jan 88 23:08:57 GMT References: <7170@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7183@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1962@bsu-cs.UUCP> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 37 Did Doug post something about the new dpANS having a different treatment of exit? I can't think of any other reason why Rahul keeps harping on like so: In article <1962@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: everything is fine, exit(something that isn't 0) -> things aren't find, and what isn't fine and how far it is from fine depends on the environment. The draft I've got my hands on says: void exit(int status) [...] if the value of status is zero or EXIT_SUCCESS, an implementation-defined form of the status successful termination is returned. If the value of status is EXIT_FAILURE, an implementation-defined form of the status unsuccessful termination is returned. Otherwise, the status is implementation-defined. This means that things written for the environments I've dealt with outside of VMS will work as well as before. And it also gives us a pair of defines (one of which can presumably be 0 everywhere, including VMS) for good/bad exits. Seems like a good thing to me.