Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stc!idec!alice!fox
From: fox@alice.marlow.reuters.co.uk (Paul Fox)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why he won't use ANSI C
Message-ID: <295@alice.marlow.reuters.co.uk>
Date: 4 Mar 88 01:11:36 GMT
References: <7563@elsie.UUCP> <7022@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7564@elsie.UUCP> <7053@brl-smoke.ARPA> <5212@utah-cs.UUCP> <7170@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7183@brl-smoke.ARPA> <5222@utah-cs.UUCP> <907@micomvax.UUCP> <7290@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2331@umd5.umd.edu>
Reply-To: fox@alice.marlow.reuters.co.uk (Paul Fox)
Organization: Reuters Ltd PLC, Marlow, Bucks, England
Lines: 27

In article <2331@umd5.umd.edu> chris@trantor.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
>X3J11 has actually done quite well, given the differences between
>existing implementations.  There are a few botches, notably the
>unsigned `value preserving' rules, `noalias', and some of the
>preprocessor rules.  The coexistence of old and new style declarations
>necessitates the format for the prototype declaration of a function
>with no arguments, which is an eyesore.  There are a few other
>kludges, but an ANSI Standard is of necessity a compromise.  

Well, what about the fact that:

	typedef int	(*PFI)();

	main()
	{
		PFI	fp = main;
	}

gives:
	fp == *fp == **fp == ***fp ?
-------------------
     //        o      All opinions are my own.
   (O)        ( )     The powers that be ...
  /    \_____( )
 o  \         |
    /\____\__/      
  _/_/   _/_/         UUCP:     fox@alice.marlow.reuters.co.uk