home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
NetNews Offline 2
/
NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso
/
news
/
comp
/
std
/
c
/
241
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1996-08-06
|
2KB
Path: newshost.lanl.gov!tanmoy
From: tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov (Tanmoy Bhattacharya)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Integral conversion e.t.c. (was: Re: Hungarian notation)
Date: 30 Jan 1996 23:40:59 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Message-ID: <TANMOY.96Jan30164059@qcd.lanl.gov>
References: <30C40F77.53B5@swsbbs.com> <KANZE.96Jan29121956@slsvewt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>
<4eindq$eju@solutions.solon.com>
<DLzK76.88@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl> <DM0HFI.GEA@sco.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: qcd.lanl.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
In-reply-to: john@sco.com's message of Tue, 30 Jan 1996 20:40:29 GMT
In article <DM0HFI.GEA@sco.COM> john@sco.com (John R MacMillan)
writes:
<snip>
diagnostics), then I have to disagree, for two reasons. One is that a
compiler that conforms to the standard is not obliged to catch non-
conforming programs, so a clean compile does not mean a conforming
program. The other reason is that a standard compiler is free to
<snip>
So even if it compiles clean with my compiler, I can't expect it to do
so with yours, and I can't even expect that the program is conforming.
That the above two statements cannot be correct follows directly from
the definition of a conforming program. Probably the words `strictly'
got omitted: but that is the very crux of this discussion, I felt.
Cheers
Tanmoy
--
tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: 1 (505) 665 3003 voice: 1 (505) 665 4733 [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]