Re: C and Tk
- From: roberson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Walter Roberson)
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:05:17 +0000 (UTC)
In article <mvt2c1l43skh49lfjvmc0ohau8fqep0ms8@xxxxxxx>,
Alan Balmer <albalmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>In satifying your statement, would you describe the use of the 'asm'
>>keyword as not being an interface? Its presence certainly admits that
>>other languages exist, but it isn't really an *interface*.
>Neither is it part of the C language.
'asm' and 'fortran' are part of K&R C. K&R 2nd edition, section
A2.4 Keywords,
"Some implementations also reserve the words fortran and asm."
C89, in the Rationale, section 3.1.1 Keywords, notes,
The keywords entry, fortran, and asm have not been included since
they were either never used, or are not portable. Uses of fortran
and asm as keywords are noted as common extensions.
I'm not a sharp enough language-lawyer to resolve this question:
When the C89 standard admits of something being a "common extension"
then is a compiler "non-compliant" for implementing that extension
(e.g., due to potential clashes with use of those words in code)?
If so, would it be sufficient for the compiler to provide a means to
turn off recognizition of the extension?
--
Look out, there are llamas!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: C and Tk
- From: Lawrence Kirby
- Re: C and Tk
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: C and Tk
- References:
- C and Tk
- From: Penguin_X
- Re: C and Tk
- From: Jack Klein
- Re: C and Tk
- From: Chris McDonald
- Re: C and Tk
- From: Alan Balmer
- C and Tk
- Prev by Date: gcc iso90 and long long
- Next by Date: Re: Array name and address of the first element
- Previous by thread: Re: C and Tk
- Next by thread: Re: C and Tk
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|