Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:12:10 +0000
Harald van D?k said:
You claimed the program was valid C.
It is.
Silly me for assuming you would refer to an older standard without stating
so.
It is certainly silly to assume that everyone has started using C99 even
though almost nobody has a conforming C99 compiler.
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.
Go on then.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- 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
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Simplicity has a future
- Prev by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- 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):