🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4j7gdp$cl7@solutions.solon.com>
           seebs@solutions.solon.com "Peter Seebach" writes:

> In article <827765484snz@tsys.demon.co.uk>,
> Tom Wheeley  <tomw@tsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Surely you have just proved that the standard library is _not_ part of the
> >C language.  At the risk of seeming -pedantic, I would say that the standard
> >library is a part of the _standard C *implementation*_, but not a part of
> >the standard C *language*.
> 
> Nope.  "This International Standard specifies and establishes the
> interpretation of programs written in the C programming language."  What
> it specifies is C.

OK, I'll try and rephrase my thoughts:

I consider the standard library, and the basic syntax of C to be slightly
separate entities, combined into the C Programming Language.  By syntax I
mean everything that doesn't have () at the end of it.  Maybe I'm just stating
the obvious now, and losing the point altogether, I'm not sure :)

>
> >That is why you can build the standard library within C -- you cannot write
> >the entire standard library using the standard library, therefore if the
> >standard library is a part of the C language, then the standard library is
> >no longer written in the C language, but only a limited subset thereof.
> 
> You cannot write the standard library in C; at least, not completely.  You

Yes, I have read yours (and Kazimir's (sp?) follow-ups), and I err, retract
that argumant as making no sense :)

.splitbung
-- 
* TQ 1.0 * The 'Just So Quotes'.
If you keep saying things are going to be bad, you have a chance of being a 
prophet.
	-- Isaac Bashevis Singer