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 Schauble 
Newsgroups: 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