🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1996Mar403.23.06.8316@koobera.math.uic.edu>,
D. J. Bernstein <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu> wrote:
>Peter Seebach <seebs@solutions.solon.com> wrote:
>> D. J. Bernstein <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu> wrote:
>> > pcc is a C compiler.
>> No, it isn't.

>For any comp.std.c readers who aren't totally clear on what's going on:
>Seebach has been making a bunch of false statements on gnu.misc.discuss
>about portability, speed, and various other things.

Example false statements:
A compiler which does not handle ANSI C is not a C compiler.
Code which uses lookup tables rather than <ctype.h> functions is probably
  not doing the right thing.

>Some of the statements would have been true if he had said ``ANSI C''
>instead of ``C.'' So now he's trying to drag the discussion over to
>comp.std.c, where it's not so unreasonable to assume that ``C'' means
>``ANSI C,'' and where he hopes people will jump to his defense.

My contention, by comparison, is that it is, by now, always correct to
assume that "C" means "ANSI C" unless explicitly stated otherwise.

It is, in no place, unreasonable to assume that C means "ANSI C".

>Anyone who actually wants to see more of this discussion should hop over
>to gnu.misc.discuss.

I would agree.

I was merely hoping for some outside observers to offer clarifications or
opinions, since it's obvious that Dan and I have religious disagreements.

-s
-- 
Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach.
C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help.  No, really!
FUCK the communications decency act.  Goddamned government.  [literally.]
The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html