To ANSI or not to ANSI (was: Re: Just a minor new twist on free())

[Alan J Rosenthal]

pds at lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith) writes:
>My question is: since we now have a standard (whatever you may think of it, it
>is an internationally accepted definition of the C programming language), why
>do we have so much reluctance to embrace it?  In particular, how can you
>justify labelling a program "non-portable" if it follows the ANSI standard?

Reality!

"Portability" is (hopefully) not merely a buzzword nor merely a political
concept.  It refers to the quantity of C compilers which will accept your
program and give it the intended semantics.  When most compilers accept all
the new Ansi-C constructs, then programs using them will be portable, but not
before.

I eagerly embrace the Ansi C standard.  I would not write any code incompatible
with it, even if that code runs on all the machines I know of.  But I eagerly
embrace reality too, and want my C code to work now, not just later.

ajr

--

"Anytime there are electronic systems there are usually complications of
electronic failure," he said.