Re: C portability is a myth
From: infobahn (infobahn_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 02/23/05
- Next message: infobahn: "Re: scripting"
- Previous message: Peter Nilsson: "Re: Binary number"
- In reply to: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Next in thread: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Reply: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Reply: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:52:44 +0000 (UTC)
Allin Cottrell wrote:
>
> Randy Howard wrote:
> >
> > Well, as on any platform, if you ask for "interesting information",
> > I.e. the kind of data that is never available in standard C, then
> > yes, you may see yourself including a lot of headers that don't
> > exist elsewhere. However, this is also true on UNIX/Linux platforms,
> > where #include <unistd.h> seems to be boilerplate for "All the
> > world's a UNIX", and will get you into trouble going the other way.
>
> Yes, but... At least on GNU/Linux, if you consult the man page for
> any given "C" function, you are given clear information on whether
> it is ISO C, POSIX, BSD or something else. I think that is less
> clear in the Windows world.
http://tinyurl.com/3m424 (MSDN page on compatibility)
Also, every[1] C function listed in MSDN has a compatibility section
which gives clear information on the matter.
There are lots of reasons to bash MS. This isn't one of them.
[1] No, of course I didn't. Would you have done? I just looked at
one, actually.
- Next message: infobahn: "Re: scripting"
- Previous message: Peter Nilsson: "Re: Binary number"
- In reply to: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Next in thread: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Reply: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Reply: Allin Cottrell: "Re: C portability is a myth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|