🚀 go-pugleaf

It may be uninteresting to require a C++ compiler to simply state that it is compatible with
a specific C compiler, but is certainly clearer than: "there must exist an ANSI C compiler with
which object from a conforming C++ compiler can be linked".  What IS the committee trying 
to achieve by defining this?  It appears that the committee is starting to venture into defining 
underlying linkage mechanisms.  Personally I would prefer "clearly stated and boring" to 
"implied (where IS this stated in the draft?) and having exciting/aggravating consequences".  
A sensible implementor will will have to document the compatability in any case - just as they 
have to today for other languages.  

Can I link IBM Ad-Cycle C-370 with BAL?  Not using standard MVS linkage you can't, there are 
additional registers that must be preserved across calls - the book tells me.  Can I link 
IBM C-370 V1 with AD-Cycle C?  Not sure... - have to look in the book - and when there is a
C++ implementation on MVS - what does it link with?  Well, I'll have to go look in the book
for that too.  This is not a real bother and is no surprise.  Is the committee trying to save me
from the reading?