🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
>>>They will even ship product with __STDC__ set to 
>>>1 without having trigraph support (as vendors are already doing).

From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)

>> That's the first I've heard of this.  How about naming such vendors
>> so we can avoid buying their product.  Who knows what else they've
>> decided to second-guess in the Standard.

In article <17.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:

>Zortec's C++ V1.07c. I presume it's the most recent release since I 
>was recently shipped it for review. It says __STDC__ == 1 and won't 
>hand ??= as #.

Well, it's hard to say which is more strange:
(1)  A C++ compiler which claims ANSI-C compatibility; or
(2)  Someone checking for ANSI-C compatibility in a C++ compiler.

Even some things that were supposed to be pure upgrades to C++ still
break valid C programs.  For example, I had learned to use typedef in
a way that helps make code self-documenting (though not popular with
C programmers), e.g.:

typedef struct my_stuff_t  *my_stuff_ptr_t;
typedef struct her_stuff_t *her_stuff_ptr_t;

typedef struct my_stuff_t {
    /* my stuff */
    her_stuff_ptr_t my_reference;
} my_stuff_t;                     /* this line broken by C++ */
                                  /* (only a warning in g++) */

my_stuff_t     joes_stuff;


Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-inventing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?