ANSI C.

[Mike Banahan]

In article <468 at graffiti.UUCP> peter at graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>The basic complaint is that X3J11 is not a description of 'C', but rather a
>description of 'C' under UNIX. There is a good deal of stuff in it that
>should not be in the language definition, but rather in a standard
>extension: the UNIX compatibility package, for example. I like UNIX, and
>I'd like nothing better than to see it become the standard O/S for non
>real-time applications (how does one deal with the DST in some little
>standalone 'C' program in an RTU in Oman somewhere? They don't even use
>it...), but I don't expect it to happen. I like 'C', and I sure hope that
>it doesn't become restricted to UNIX and UNIX-like systems.
>
>That's what I see happening, however, unless X3J11 is (a) ignored or (b)
>fixed. And I hope that if they don't (b) fix it, everyone else follows my
>example and (a) ignores it.

That's not too difficult to get around. What Peter is describing is
the `conforming hosted implementation'. He has missed the bit at the front
of the draft which says that a `conforming freestanding implementation'
doesn't have the libraries: you have to provide your own. It's more painful,
but you can write stand-alone code that way.

Interestingly, of course the libraries themselves MUST be prepared in a
freestanding fashion; it is explicitly forbidden to define a function
called `printf' in a hosted implementation!


Now some people would come back with the ``read the draft you dummy''
sort of flame - but that isn't why we should be using this newsgroup.
However, as one who has played a part in the drafting of the standard,
I must admit that it is *EXTREMELY ANNOYING* to see questions posted
which are based on the assumption that ``the committee are a bunch
of unthinking turkeys''. Postings of that sort are a good way of
	1) annoying those who know the answer, enough so they
	   don't reply.
and
	2) getting the usual raft of know-nothing replies from folk
	   who read an old draft once and now think that they understand it.

Believe it or not, most of the committee members know a great deal
about C, and care a lot about how the standard ends up. Every single
word in that document has been discussed, taken apart, shaken, and
put back if it fits. It's worth bearing that in mind if you come across
something that doesn't seem to make immediate sense; maybe you're missing
the point - there are some subtle problems which take some sorting out.

(Sorry Peter - that wasn't aimed at you personally, just a general chide).
-- 
Mike Banahan, Technical Director, The Instruction Set Ltd.
mcvax!ukc!inset!mikeb