🚀 go-pugleaf

>
>        I am planning to buy a C compiler.  Do you have any suggestion ?

	Hey!  Good news for MWC users / potential users.  Remember that msg
I posted some time ago asking for news about the C Source Debugger (Csd)?
I got impatient, and phoned them on Friday, and was informed that yes, it
is under development.  I asked the guy for an estimate of the release time,
and he simply agreed with me that "within a half-year" was a good guess.
	Oh boy oh boy.
	So now I'm back to having to decide which compiler to buy.  I was
just about to pick up Megamax this weekend.  Now, if Megamax had a good
debugger...
	Also: version 2.0 of MWC (oh, that's Mark Williams C, by the way) is
soon to be released.  Some of the mentioned improvements were: new manual with
GEM documentation, automatic jump to Emacs upon compile errors, and automatic
compiling from Emacs, uh, let's see, faster compile time, more library
functions, and I forget what else.

	Now: of all the bug notices I've seen on the Net and elsewhere, 
Mark Williams seems to have been the target of the fewest.  Is MWC the most
robust compiler?   I haven't seen too many Megamax bugs listed, but here's
a few that I'm aware of (I work parttime at a computer store & fiddle with
Megamax a lot):
	- gemdos functions within 'if' statements don't work unless you assign
	  them to a variable.  I.e.,
		if (Cnecin() == 'q') exit();	won't work, but
		if ((dummy = Cnecin()) == 'q')...  will work.
	  (The reason I say gemdos functions is that other function calls
	  within if statements do work; maybe it has something to do with the
	  'trap' instruction?)
	- the '%' operation is poorly implemented.  Correct me if I'm wrong,
	  but x % n is supposed to result in an integer from 0 to n-1, right?
	  Well, it often results in a negative number.  I.e., something like
	  30000 % 11 would produce a negative number.
	- ++ is extremely poorly implemented.  Using post-incrementing within
	  a loop will sometimes result in pre-incrementing, for one thing. I.e.,
	  	for (loop = 0; loop < 10; array[loop++] = x)   ;
	  will sometimes go from 1 to 10, rather than 0 to 9.  _Sometimes_.

				- Jonathan Fischer
I THINK that I've got this straight:
		local:	jafischer@watrose
		UUCP: 	watmath!watrose!jafischer
		csnet:	jafischer%watrose@waterloo.csnet
		arpa:	jafischer%watrose@waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
(If any of this is wrong, would some kind soul please notify me immediately?
Up until I read some 'man' stuff on addresses a few minutes ago, I knew
diddly about mail paths).