Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: "Harald van Dijk" <truedfx@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2006 02:06:32 -0700
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Ian Collins said:
Harald van D?k wrote:
My C compiler gave several screens of errors and warning before giving up.
c.c: In function ?main?:
c.c:17: error: type defaults to ?int? in declaration of ?i?
c.c:20: error: expected ?,? or ?;? before ?)? token
c.c:64: error: implicit declaration of function ?toupper?
c.c:69: error: implicit declaration of function ?tolower?
That's compiling as C, not as C++.
Try it again, fixing the trivial error on line 20 (for which I apologise).
Any errors you get then will be either because you have managed to dig up a
C99 compiler from somewhere (and I don't claim that the program is valid
C99),
You claimed the program was valid C. Silly me for assuming you would
refer to an older standard without stating so.
That aside, though, your rules are obviously intentionally
unreasonable, as it is entirely possible to modify your program to make
it valid C++ without modifying either its "essential character" or its
output.
or because your compiler is simply issuing diagnostics for the sake
of it. Modulo the linesplice accident, the program is, as far as I'm aware,
a legal C90 program.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- References:
- Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Simplicity has a future
- Prev by Date: malloc() implementation
- Next by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Previous by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|