🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8137@boring.cwi.nl>, siebren@cwi.nl (Siebren van der Zee) writes:
> In article <857@per2.UUCP> dag@per2.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes:
> >In article <8120@boring.cwi.nl>, steven@cwi.nl (Steven Pemberton) writes:
> >> Surprisingly, Mark Williams C 2.0 already has a lot of ANSI C in it.
> >> But the naughties, they #define __STDC__ but do *not* implement all of

> If only somebody could explain to me what use the definition of __STDC__
> as 0 might mean, why I might want to have my compiler to define it...
> 
> 	Siebren van der Zee, siebren@cwi.nl -- waiting for MWC V4

This whole discussion has been about telling whether a compiler complies
with the proposed standard.  Defining __STDC__ as zero is a very reasonable
way of telling a program that you don't comply with the standard.  As far
as I can see, it's the only way that's consistent with the obviously intended
'Other Shoe': a future language standard will define __STDC__ as 2.  As to
why one might want a non-complying compiler in a world of complying ones,
there are the usual maintenance/library arguments.  I've seen machines with
3 generations of FORTRAN compilers, or 2 levels of Pascal available.
                                      Steve J.