Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!spdcc!ima!haddock!karl From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Leo's ANSI C Flame Message-ID: <5041@haddock.ISC.COM> Date: 12 Jul 88 01:10:02 GMT References: <2258@sugar.UUCP> <225800042@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston Lines: 33 In article <225800042@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >I think you'll find that, when ANSI C becomes real, very, very few people >will actually USE real ANSI C compilers. I disagree. I think they'll use Standard-conforming compilers, with extensions (e.g. for POSIX) that don't collide with the Standard. >They use the fixed version without trigraphs, I don't think trigraphs should exist, but given their existence, I see no reason to use a trigraph-ignoring compiler. If I don't use strings that contain trigraphs, it's a moot point. If I (accidentally) do, then my code isn't portable to real ANSI compilers, and fixing that is more important to me than having the compiler silently do what I meant. >with some sort of no-alias perversion, Perhaps. But if it's spelled "#pragma noalias", or even "__noalias", it might still be ANSI. (The jury is still out on this issue.) >and with, probably, a bit of name-space pollution. Whatever for? It's simple enough to avoid. >Most compilers will require a special command line switch to get full >compatibility with the standard. I think I'd make full ANSI the default, and have a special command-line option to get bug-for-bug compatibility (e.g. Reiser cpp). Perhaps you mean that most compilers will require a special option to disable all extensions and compile only strictly conforming programs? Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint