Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA From: Paul SchaubleNewsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: C standard - levels? Message-ID: <6748@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Sun, 23-Dec-84 02:38:24 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6748 Posted: Sun Dec 23 02:38:24 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 02:35:20 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 16 Has the standard committee considered making a multi-level standard, like COBOL? I can see much virtue in a two-level standard, 1. Regular C, as described in K&R 2. Full C, including long identifiers (internal and external), structure assign and function return, enumeration types, etc. This solves the political problem of allowing older C compilers to be "standard" but still describes a higher level language. Comments?? Paul