Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!ray From: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: volatile (in comp.lang.c) Message-ID: <1048@micomvax.UUCP> Date: 9 May 88 16:08:14 GMT References: <20345@pyramid.pyramid.com> <833@mcdsun.UUCP> <9916@tekecs.TEK.COM> <2642@geac.UUCP> <2082@winchester.mips.COM> <2674@geac.UUCP <2686@geac.UUCP> <1001@ima.ISC.COM> Reply-To: ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. (TDS - Montreal) St. Laurent QC, Canada Lines: 23 In article <1001@ima.ISC.COM> johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) writes: >..... The question is whether it belongs in ANSI C, >which purports to be a standard for a language for portable programs. >..... ANSI C surely does not purport to be any such thing. ANSI C standardizes the language to enable portability to be easier to achieve *IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE*. Am I to be forbidden from writing my UNIX device drivers for my Brand X machine in 'C' because they are not portable, and were never intended to be portable? Jeesh! I've posted one or two comments about the inappropriateness of portability as the main reason d'etre in much programming activity, but I never thought I would have to refute an attempt to say that 'C' was only a language for portable programs!! -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090