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!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!jpm@bnl.ARPA From: John McNameeNewsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Multilevel standard Message-ID: <6760@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 24-Dec-84 20:25:43 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6760 Posted: Mon Dec 24 20:25:43 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 03:07:52 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 27 It was proposed in net.lang.c that the new standard should have two levels: One that follows K&R and one with all the extensions. I strongly disagree with this idea. One thing I hope the ANSI standard will do is force vendors of C compilers to upgrade their products. Most microcomputer C compilers do not have enums, structure assignment/passing, or the void type, all of which have been around for some time. I hope that having an ANSI standard will push vendors into adding these and the other new features. Its amazing how many bad compilers with very small libraries claim to be "standard" because they follow K&R. That makes my life harder because I have to determine on a case by case basis if my code will work with a given compiler. This is a big problem in the micro world, where many compiler writers seem to have never read sections 2 and 3 of the UPM. I want to be able to move my programs to ANY compiler that follows the ANSI standard, not just the ones that follow subset ABC, exception XYZ. C is supposed to be a portable language, and having multiple levels destroys that portability (unless you code using the minimum language, which I dont want to do). The standard committee displayed a great deal of wisdom by leaving out multiple levels of compliance. Lets keep it out. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm jpm@Bnl.Arpa