Xref: utzoo comp.sys.atari.st:16656 comp.misc:6193
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!chinet!saj
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Mark Williams C
Summary: You answered your own question
Message-ID: <8530@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 24 May 89 16:48:13 GMT
References: <24094@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <431fba10.14a1f@gtephx.UUCP> <8137@boring.cwi.nl>
Followup-To: comp.sys.atari.st
Organization: Chinet - Chicago, Ill.
Lines: 20

In article <8137@boring.cwi.nl>, siebren@cwi.nl (Siebren van der Zee) writes:
> In article <857@per2.UUCP> dag@per2.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes:
> >In article <8120@boring.cwi.nl>, steven@cwi.nl (Steven Pemberton) writes:
> >> Surprisingly, Mark Williams C 2.0 already has a lot of ANSI C in it.
> >> But the naughties, they #define __STDC__ but do *not* implement all of

> If only somebody could explain to me what use the definition of __STDC__
> as 0 might mean, why I might want to have my compiler to define it...
> 
> 	Siebren van der Zee, siebren@cwi.nl -- waiting for MWC V4

This whole discussion has been about telling whether a compiler complies
with the proposed standard.  Defining __STDC__ as zero is a very reasonable
way of telling a program that you don't comply with the standard.  As far
as I can see, it's the only way that's consistent with the obviously intended
'Other Shoe': a future language standard will define __STDC__ as 2.  As to
why one might want a non-complying compiler in a world of complying ones,
there are the usual maintenance/library arguments.  I've seen machines with
3 generations of FORTRAN compilers, or 2 levels of Pascal available.
                                      Steve J.