Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Need C language Description
Message-ID: <1151@garth.UUCP>
Date: 4 Aug 88 20:09:49 GMT
References: <12707@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1104@garth.UUCP> <8270@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1112@garth.UUCP> <1988Aug2.233758.25939@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 15

>Ho ho.  No, it's not that simple.

An apt comment on the future of C and Unix.

>                                   The problem with formal definitions like
>the PL/I definition and the Revised Algol 68 Report is that they are
>hideously unreadable.  X3J11 talked about the possibility earlier on, and
>quickly rejected it, on the grounds that a less formal description was far
>more accessible to users and implementors.

The original query was if a formal definition of C existed. Thanks to Happy
Hank for agreeing with me that there was none.

As far being `unreadable' or less `accessible,' that's too easy a target. As
long as we refuse to correct the problems that exists, they will continue.