Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!udel!rochester!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: serious code generation bug in Lightspeed C
Message-ID: <6337@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 19 Jan 89 01:39:24 GMT
References: <1112@dogie.edu>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 47

In article <1112@dogie.edu> yahnke@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke, MACC) writes:
>Tim, you are simply wrong, and obstinate to belabour the issue. As other 
>people in this group have pointed out, the problem you've mentioned is
>documented in Inside Mac. Yes, of course the examples are in Pascal. 
>That was the only development language readily available when the Mac 
>was brought out. I don't think it takes a PhD. to extrapolate the hows 
>and whys of the problem from Pascal to C, the two languages are not that 
>incredibly different. For you to say that "There is nothing documented 
>about this being a problem with C" is a specious palaver, and also 
>completely untrue.

(Gosh, *both* specious and untrue?)

Ross, open your IMv2 to page 16.  Got it?  OK.  Now, look at the three
notes under "The Lisa Pascal compiler frequently dereferences handles
during its normal operation."  What is the first one?  That's right, it
is about the WITH statement, and has no applicability to any C
compiler.  What is the third one?  Yes, it concerns implicit passing by
reference of structures, something which no C compiler does, and again
has absolutely nothing to do with C.  Now, what is the second one?  It
concerns assigment to relocatable handles, and may or may not appear to
have any relevance to C.  Given that it is surrounded by
Pascal-specific references, and that the description in the text
frequently and explicitly limits its scope to the Lisa Pascal compiler,
it is frankly ridiculous to claim that this is documented by Apple as a
problem with C, or with any language other than Pascal.  It may be
obdurate in your eyes to point this out, but it is also true.  Or perhaps
you would prefer this phrasing: "It is a verisimilar assertion, and also
completely true."

>In the latest set of documentation for LSC, the small set of double 
>manuals with the Symantec label that was issued for the 2.0 release,
>on Page 121 of the User's Manual:
>
>So the problem *IS* well documented if only you bother to read the 
>manual. You do *own* a copy of the manual, don't you?

I stand corrected, with the disclaimer that I was only repeating what
another poster had said.  I can only wonder why you didn't bother to
send one of your flames to him.

Of course I have a copy of the manual, since I use the software.
Accusing someone of a crime in public is extremely rude.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim
"There are no Famous People on the net.  Only some of us with bigger mouths
 than others."  -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, The Roach