Are you serious? DO you read what you are writing?
It doesn;t matter if a standard exist, if not 99% of
the implemetations follows
it. I didn't give you examples where a standard
lacks, I give you an example when IT IS NOT FOLLOWED.
And , as in C++, IT IS ALSO NOT FOLLOWED.
Dig it:
C AND C++ have the same standartization problems.
THE STANDARDS ARE NOT FOLLOWED.
> Umm..."b" is always supported, and the default mode is *always* text. It
> just so happens that on UNIX, things happen to work even if you forget the
> "b".
So what you are saying that there is no standard meaning for
"b" and "t". Exactly my point: No standartization in C for the
most abvious and used functions.
> > *) Worse: Do you know the size of a pointer ? A long ? what
> > ever compiler, or on some system, how you booted the machine,
> > effect that.
>
> There are standards for minimum length.
Who cares what is the minimum length? WHAT IS
THE STANDARD ?
>
> > *) Is the "long long" datatype signed or unsigned by default ?
> > Can you read my the "standard" on this ?
>
> "long long" isn't part of the C standard. It is part of the upcoming
> C9x standard, however.
What do we care? Most compilers have it, since almost
no compiler followes the standard.
>
>
> > 3) The "standard" C language Keywords
> >
> >
> > *) Have you ever heard of the "far" keyword, sometimes used as the
"FAR"
> > macro? On 16 bit 8086 systems, it is used widely. Do you know
how
> > hard is this to go over 100's of 1000's of lines of "standard"
C
> > code
> > and make it 32-bit with this used-to-be widely-used keyword
>
> But "far" isn't part of the standard.
So why is it widely supported? Again, C compilers
DO NOT follows the standard, exaclty like C++.
>
> > *) "register" . Does anyone know what it does? It varies on
different
> > versions
> > of the same compiler, for god's sake.
>
> It does nothing semantically, except means it's illegal to take the
> address.
> The compiler can do whatever optimizations which do not affect semantics.
I know C, thank you.
>
> > 4) The "standard" C Preproccesor
> >
> > Don't get me started on this. Almost no two compiler has similar
> > preprocessor. Multiple parameters to a macro with the same name?
> > sometimes you have it, sometimes not.
>
> It's illegal to do it. The C compiler can make demons come out of your
> nose for all I care.
So you agree with me, every C compiler have another
version of C. `What a wonderfull, standartized language.
>
>
> > and the "#pargma" directive,
> > which makes sure that your code will not compile somewjere else,
> > makes sure that you have to read ALL the manual of ALL the c
> > compiler you are using.
>
> Here's a simple solution: don't use "#pragma".
>
Who care about the solution? I am showing you example of
miss-standartization, nd you give me obvious, useless
"solutions". Those #pragma-s are needed, you cannot
just "not use" it.
> > And, I don't know why you guis like Standard so much. There
> > is one language that have a full tandard: ADA.
>
> There are many more: Common Lisp is standard, too, for example. If you're
> not demanding ANSI standards, then you have Scheme (R5RS), and ECMAScript,
> for example.
>
> Standards are good, because code sometimes needs to be portable. The code
> I write must compile on WinNT with MSVC 5.0 and 6.0, on Solaris with
> SunWS 5.0, on AIX with Visual Age 5.0, and more porting requirements are
> looming in the future.
> C++ does have a standard, but all compilers I
> mentioned have too many parts they don't support that well
Please, stop with the hot air. Give EXAMPLES.
>. C, OTOH, is
> pretty well implemented on all of them.
Pretty well, but not from a standartization POV.
>
> --
> Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is no IGLU cabal.
> http://advogato.org/person/moshez
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
