problem with cc compiler

[Sean Fagan]

In article <10620 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>If K&R first edition is to be accepted as a standard, then why not K&R
>second edition?  I think you're just being silly.  Everyone knew the
>context of the discussion.

Yes, I was being somewhat silly.  However, your response, at a time when
there is not a *single* ANSI-compliant C compiler (partially because there
*is* not an ANSI C standard) was on the order of "Well, you can't do that,
nyah nyah nyah."  I've been seeing too much of that, and it's really not a
useful response.

Then again, this probably isn't, either 8-).

C related notice:  has anybody but myself noticed that the current dpANS
does not seem to require that the implementation-dependent (or defined)
options can change between modules?  Provided everything works, there is no
reason why, for example, sizeof(int) in one module could be 2, and 4 in
another (again, provided everything works properly with the libraries...).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  |    "Uhm, excuse me..."
seanf at sco.UUCP   |      -- James T. Kirk (William Shatner), ST V: TFF
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.