Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!van-bc!root
From: lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Ideas for next Arp
Message-ID: <1978@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 26 Nov 88 18:06:12 GMT
Sender: root@van-bc.UUCP
Lines: 29

In <8811251850.AA06178@jade.berkeley.edu>,
    U211344@HNYKUN11.BITNET (Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert) writes:
> .... There is NO Manx C.
> There is C, a programming language defined by Kernighan and Ritchie,
> (soon also by an ANSI committee), and a Manx compiler, that accepts
> programs written in C. Usually, these people really mean to say:
> 'This program can be compiled with the Manx C compiler'.
> But why don't they say that, then???

Compile a non-trivial program using the Lattice C compiler.  Use no special
command line switches. Compile the same code using the Manx C compiler, again
with no special command line switches. Do they both successfully run?
Do either of the compilers break any significant rules as defined by
K&R?

Manx and Lattice seem to me to be clear enough when used as adjectives
describing two different implementations of a language in which so much
is left to the discretion of the compiler implementation.

-larry

--
"Intelligent CPU?  I thought you said Intel CPU!" 
        -Anonymous IBM designer-
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                          |
| \X/    lpami.wimsey.bc.ca!lphillips or van-bc!lpami!lphillips  |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322                                  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+