realloc

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <3240 at goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones at megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
>Why is 1 better than the proposal?  Because otherwise somebody reading
>the standard might be lulled into thinking that he is writing a portable
>program when he's not. It is the ANSI-STANDARD, after all (ta-ta!).

I think that would indicate confusion about the use of the C standard
that needs to be straightened out anyway.  The (p)ANS is not intended
to document a "lowest common denominator" of existing C implementations.
It IS intended to document an interface that can be relied on for any
implementation that is advertised as ANSI C standard conforming.  How
to cope with non-standard implementations is a proper topic for courses
in C programming, but it's not directly the business of the standard.