Need C language Description

[Steven Ryan]

>Ho ho.  No, it's not that simple.

An apt comment on the future of C and Unix.

>                                   The problem with formal definitions like
>the PL/I definition and the Revised Algol 68 Report is that they are
>hideously unreadable.  X3J11 talked about the possibility earlier on, and
>quickly rejected it, on the grounds that a less formal description was far
>more accessible to users and implementors.

The original query was if a formal definition of C existed. Thanks to Happy
Hank for agreeing with me that there was none.

As far being `unreadable' or less `accessible,' that's too easy a target. As
long as we refuse to correct the problems that exists, they will continue.