Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!uflorida!usfvax2!pollock
From: pollock@usfvax2.EDU (Wayne Pollock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: lint
Message-ID: <1090@usfvax2.EDU>
Date: 18 Jun 88 00:10:23 GMT
References: <8808@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Reply-To: pollock@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (Wayne Pollock)
Organization: University of South Florida at Tampa
Lines: 18

In article <8808@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes:
>Copied from comp.lang.c article:
>>I've said it before (usually in Pascal-vs-C discussions): a C compiler
>>consists of two parts, traditionally called cc and lint.  A vendor who doesn't
>>supply a lint equivalent is only selling half a C compiler.
>>
>>Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
>
>I *thought* there was something missing!

You are so right.  The compiler was originally split into two parts so small
changes could be made while tuning a program quickly (without all the
checking), and to make the checking portion smaller (which is all that is
needed in the first few iterations of edit-test).  I would rather have a full
version of lint than a symbolic debugger!

Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist)	pollock@usfvax2.usf.edu
Usenet:		...!{ihnp4, cbatt}!codas!usfvax2!pollock
GEnie:		W.POLLOCK