New US Rep to ISO C
Norman Diamond
diamond at diamond.csl.sony.junet
Mon May 1 19:25:42 AEST 1989
In article <15.UUL1.3#5077 at aussie.UUCP> rex at aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
>>>They will even ship product with __STDC__ set to
>>>1 without having trigraph support (as vendors are already doing).
From: gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
>> That's the first I've heard of this. How about naming such vendors
>> so we can avoid buying their product. Who knows what else they've
>> decided to second-guess in the Standard.
In article <17.UUL1.3#5077 at aussie.UUCP> rex at aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
>Zortec's C++ V1.07c. I presume it's the most recent release since I
>was recently shipped it for review. It says __STDC__ == 1 and won't
>hand ??= as #.
Well, it's hard to say which is more strange:
(1) A C++ compiler which claims ANSI-C compatibility; or
(2) Someone checking for ANSI-C compatibility in a C++ compiler.
Even some things that were supposed to be pure upgrades to C++ still
break valid C programs. For example, I had learned to use typedef in
a way that helps make code self-documenting (though not popular with
C programmers), e.g.:
typedef struct my_stuff_t *my_stuff_ptr_t;
typedef struct her_stuff_t *her_stuff_ptr_t;
typedef struct my_stuff_t {
/* my stuff */
her_stuff_ptr_t my_reference;
} my_stuff_t; /* this line broken by C++ */
/* (only a warning in g++) */
my_stuff_t joes_stuff;
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp at relay.cs.net)
The above opinions are my own. | Why are programmers criticized for
If they're also your opinions, | re-inventing the wheel, when car
you're infringing my copyright. | manufacturers are praised for it?
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list