Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: Ian Collins <ian-news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:15:17 +1300
santosh wrote:
One has to draw the distinction between extensions to the language (the
But what about more fundamental extensions like the && gcc extension
discussed in another thread or the various operator overloading
features implemented by the lcc-win32 compiler? Can code that use such
"radical" extensions still be called as C? I don't think so. What
makes one extension reasonable and another not, from the POV of being
compatible with C?
&& gcc extension and operator overloading) and platform specific
libraries. It is a fairly straightforward exercise for a developer to
implement a set of functions defined in a library (say Posix file
handling or BSD style sockets), but not to implement extensions to the
language. Which makes the former portable and the latter not.
Anything which conforms to the language defined in the current C
standard is a C program, which includes programs that include
non-standard headers.
--
Ian Collins.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: Mark McIntyre
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- References:
- Automatically generate variables
- From: Nate
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: Mark McIntyre
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: Mark McIntyre
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: Yevgen Muntyan
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: santosh
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: Yevgen Muntyan
- Re: Automatically generate variables
- From: santosh
- Automatically generate variables
- Prev by Date: Re: stange problem with bind() funcktion - winsock2
- Next by Date: Re: placing mpz_t variable of gmp.h library into the char buffer
- Previous by thread: Re: Automatically generate variables
- Next by thread: Re: Automatically generate variables
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|