🚀 go-pugleaf

Kazimir Kylheku wrote:
 > 
 > In article <3154A548.71FF@iadfw.net>, Larry Weiss  <lfw@iadfw.net> wrote:
 > >Looking at it another way, until the C Standard was published, I just looked
 > >at the vendor supplied library as a popular example of how one might go about
 > >interfacing with a file system, or manipluating strings, etc.   
 > >[before standardization] I didn't think of the library as a formal part
 > >of the C language. 
 > 
 > Neither does the K&R2: this I think is a major flaw in the otherwise great
 > book. It never makes clear the concept that the standard library is a component
 > of the language. In fact, it claims the opposite:
 > 
 >         The standard library is not part of the C language proper, but an
 >         environment that supports standard C will provide the function
 >         declarations and type and macro definitions of this library.
 >         (beginning of Appendix B).
 > 

That is a very interesting critique of K&R2.   I'd like to hear other people's
comments on how to reconcile that text with the truth and still have as much
confidence as we do have in that book.   Maybe "C language proper" can be just 
thought of as a concept that K&R alone define, but I don't know if I'm willing
to cut them that much rope.