Want the word on __STDC__

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <4203 at lupine.NCD.COM> rfg at NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>I assume that you also get irrate about implementors who define __STDC__
>to something other than 1.

I have no problem with an otherwise CONFORMING implementation defining
__STDC__ to something other than 1, although why would it?  At least
that does not cause problems for strictly conforming applications.

>The corresponding three "compilation modes" are (respectively):

But that is NOT what __STDC__ means according to the C standard,
which is why there is a problem with people trying to use it for
other purposes.