Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!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: <14328@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 14 May 89 15:21:22 GMT
References: <1954@trantor.harris-atd.com> <10084@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14324@bfmny0.UUCP> <10257@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14327@bfmny0.UUCP> <10260@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 16

In article <10260@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>You don't need #pragma for your code to be non-conformant.
>The important thing is that *conformant* code following the
>occurrence of #pragma be interpreted by the implementation
>according to the ANSI specs.

That is *exactly* what I said two articles ago, and Doug objected.
If your *code* would be ANSI without the #pragma, then no worries.
The tough question, which I thought (think? thunk?) Henry was getting
at, is whether a *compiler* that allows you to use #pragma to create
non-conformant code -- even though it satisifies the other requirements
above -- deserves the ANSI imprimatur.  My position is that there's
no choice, because they'll all be doing it.
-- 
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET