Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1
From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: volatile (in comp.lang.c)
Message-ID: <4727@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 May 88 01:17:50 GMT
References: <2642@geac.UUCP> <225800029@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 15

In article <225800029@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>I believe that a language, per se, should be divided into a "portable"
>part and a language-specified non-portable syntax.

But what does 'language-specified non-portable' really mean?  The problem
is, 'volatile' means different things on different machines and even in
different implementations on the same machine.  If it can't be
well-defined, it shouldn't be in the language.  Personally, I feel that
there is a need for 'volatile' in C, but the way it is specified in dpANS C
is not good enough for it to be useful.
-- 
 _ __			NEVIN J. LIBER	..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1	(312) 510-6194
' )  )				"The secret compartment of my ring I fill
 /  / _ , __o  ____		 with an Underdog super-energy pill."
/  (_