Re: Automatically generate variables

Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:30:00 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Yevgen Muntyan
<muntyan.removethis@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

No it isn't. If it had #include "windows.h" it would be.
I'm afraid I can't understand this.

What CBF was trying to say is the <> and "" forms of #include
potentially search different places. By convention. the <> form
searches your system header paths, while "" searches
application-specific paths. However this has nothing to do with
whether a header is ISO standard or not, so the point isn't relevant.

Now I got it, I didn't notice <> vs "". Well, that's a wrong statement.
C standard says as much about #include "windows.h" as about
#include <windows.h>. Namely, using either form makes your program
not strictly conforming. And if you talk real compilers, you can
make the compiler pick your header instead of system one
when you use #include <windows.h>, and vice versa. In any case,
it's out of standard business. So are we talking about common
sense here or about what?

And? Is this program C or not? If not, what is it (just curious
what ridiculous things people can invent instead of using standard
"strictly conforming" term). And please don't tell "this is not standard
C", I didn't say that. I am saying "it is a C program".

It is _potentially_ a C programme. However since we have no idea at

Yes you do. That's the point. You know pretty well the program was
a C program but you wanted to tell couple nice words to Jacob Navia,
so you did "beep beep not C". Bull***.

all what is in "windows.h", we can't tell what nonstandard and
nonportable atrocities might be therein. Any one of these could render
the code no longer C.

Yes it could, sure.

The point CBF was making here is that had the user supplied the
contents of windows.h, we oculd have been certain whether it was C or
not. As it is, it could be packed with assembler, platform-specific
memory access which violates C standards, etc etc etc.

Well, the point was hidden pretty well. This is obvious, the
non-standard header may do what it wants to. So why do you
say *not C* if you do *not* know that? I simply assume that
header is indeed the famous windows.h thing, windows C api,
for C programs. You?

Yevgen
.

Quantcast