Want the word on __STDC__

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <1991Mar7.194733.18150 at watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterw at watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>The failure to fully define __STDC__ was obviously a mistake,
>and some vendors have thoroughly abused it.
>Perhaps the next version of the standard could denegrate __STDC__
>and introduce a new definition, say something like
>   #define __ANSI_X3_159__ 1989

The real problem is that the standard can constrain only the behavior
of CONFORMING implementations; nonconforming implementations can do
whatever they please, including pretending to be standard conformant.

Your suggestions did not address this fundamental problem any better
than the existing specification for __STDC__ did.  I am of the opinion
that there is no method by which any standard could solve the problem.