Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!dik
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Mark Williams C
Message-ID: <8176@boring.cwi.nl>
Date: 8 Jun 89 20:51:15 GMT
References: <24094@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <431fba10.14a1f@gtephx.UUCP> <8137@boring.cwi.nl> <8530@chinet.chi.il.us> <13475@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1000@twwells.uucp> <13522@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1011@twwells.uucp> <8465@june.cs.washington.edu> <10334@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNE
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 16

In article <10378@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
 > In article <10334@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes:
 > >Your code will break in newer versions [of standard-conforming C
 > >compilers] anyway.
 > 
 > Standard-conforming code is not expected to be rendered non-conforming
 > in the next revision of the C Standard.  Any area where there was some
 > sentiment that it might was flagged as an "obsolescent feature" in the
 > current Standard, which should serve as sufficient warning to people
 > to avoid relying on their long-term stability.

Harumph.  Yeah, we know about obsolescent features.  See Fortran.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
INTERNET   : dik@cwi.nl
BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax