Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:999 comp.lang.c:17382
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: realloc
Message-ID: <9968@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 3 Apr 89 19:01:55 GMT
References: <9962@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3240@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <3240@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
>Why is 1 better than the proposal?  Because otherwise somebody reading
>the standard might be lulled into thinking that he is writing a portable
>program when he's not. It is the ANSI-STANDARD, after all (ta-ta!).

I think that would indicate confusion about the use of the C standard
that needs to be straightened out anyway.  The (p)ANS is not intended
to document a "lowest common denominator" of existing C implementations.
It IS intended to document an interface that can be relied on for any
implementation that is advertised as ANSI C standard conforming.  How
to cope with non-standard implementations is a proper topic for courses
in C programming, but it's not directly the business of the standard.