🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BLUME.95Sep15102347@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu>, blume@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu (Matthias Blume) writes:
|> From: blume@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu (Matthias Blume)
|> Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
|> Subject: Re: Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++
|> Date: 15 Sep 1995 14:23:47 GMT
|> Organization: Princeton University
|> Lines: 13
|> Distribution: world
|> Message-ID: <BLUME.95Sep15102347@dynamic.cs.princeton.edu>
|> References: <438nkr$bd@classic.eng.octel.com> <4395o4$3mv2@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
|> 	<43bdus$l2g@nntp.nta.no>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: dynamic.cs.princeton.edu
|> In-reply-to: ohk@hal.nta.no's message of 15 Sep 1995 08:36:44 GMT
|> Xref: nntp.nta.no comp.lang.modula2:10324 comp.lang.modula3:4191 comp.lang.c:120691 comp.lang.c++:132684
|> 
|> In article <43bdus$l2g@nntp.nta.no> ohk@hal.nta.no (Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen TF.E/DELAB) writes:
|> 
|>    What worries me is that there does not seem to be a clean way to ensure that a
|>    record has a specific *physical* layout. If it is to be used for systems
|>    programming, I think this is an important feature, because there is often a need
|>    to interface to devices which expect to use a fixed data format.
|> 
|> If you had read the C standard or any of the more popular documents
|> describing it then you would know that neither C nor C++ give you such
|> a guarantee either.
|> 
|> --
|> -Matthias

What makes you think I haven't read it? I was just complaining that Modual-3 does
not provide it.

Btw, I don't particulary like the lack of specification of basic types like int,
short, etc. in C/C++ either, and Ada isn't much better, which we discovered when
using a validated Ada compiler which only had 16 bit int's, even though the CPU
on which it was running had a 32 bit CPU!

Ole-Hj. Kristensen