(* func)(fred, bert)

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <1113 at cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl at oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In article <11592 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>>However, your code is not portable.
>The great portable-as-boolean fallacy again.

No, that's your fallacy.

>His code is less than 100.000% portable, but it is probably more than
>99.999% portable.

Since 100% portability is achievable just as readily as a lower
degree of confidence (nowhere near 99%, by whatever meaningful
metric one could devise), why recommend other than perfection
in this case?  Bad habits should be discouraged as a matter of
practical principle.