Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: setjmp/longjmp
Message-ID: <1989May2.225124.12977@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1447@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> <1989Apr27.165319.23986@utzoo.uucp> <17179@mimsy.UUCP> <1989Apr29.232632.23997@utzoo.uucp> <10203@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> <10189@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: Tue, 2 May 89 22:51:24 GMT

In article <10189@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>Perhaps the marketplace should be encouraged to support this pseudo-standard.
>>If customers refuse to buy compilers with misfeatures, even if the compilers
>>are compliant, correct results can be obtained.
>
>Please get with the program.  The main reason a C standard was developed
>was precisely because of this kind of "every vendor decide for himself"
>approach to implementing C, which made portable programming excessively
>difficult...
>so long as the specification is unambiguous you do your customers no
>favor by deviating from it.  You will probably also lose sales when your
>compiler fails standard conformance tests.

Uh, Doug, he's talking about doing better than mere conformance, not about
deviating from it.  "Quality of implementation", remember?
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu