Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: I can't find a good definition anywhere...
Message-ID: <14327@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 14 May 89 04:33:05 GMT
References: <1954@trantor.harris-atd.com> <10084@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14324@bfmny0.UUCP> <10257@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 15

In article <10257@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>No!  It is the implementation that I was saying is required to conform
>to the specifications of the Standard whether or not a program contains
>any particular construct (including #pragma).  #pragma is not license
>for the implementation to suddenly ignore the constraints of the Standard.

Then there will be no conformant implementations and Doug's interpretation
will be vacuously correct.  Every implementation I have encountered where
#pragma is supported has at least one way you can use it to do something
non-ANSI.  Is this likely to reverse itself?  Compilers have to live in
the real world, including the grungy goal of backward compatibility.

-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET