Re: Automatically generate variables

Yevgen Muntyan <muntyan.removethis@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:
You're the one using non-Standard extensions and claiming they're
perfectly good C. I suggest that _you_ come up with your definition of
what is and is not a C program. Be careful, now: some definitions are
trickier than they first seem. For example, simply replying "any
conforming program" would have some unforeseen consequences...

Try reading the thread, you'll find some discussion of this, what
you're saying and more.

What I find is a whole lot of "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is";
but nothing that makes it clear what _you_ consider to be C. Since
you're the one who is telling the rest of us that we're wrong, perhaps
you'd like to enlighten us, rather than just contradicting.

Anyway, could you please confirm that the program was not C?

Of course it wasn't.

And could you tell (I am just curious) what you'd call it?

That one? Pseudo-Windows pseudo-C compatible-with-nothing crap.

Just what you think when you see such a piece of code, i.e.
99% of "C" code you see

I see a good deal of utter tripe, but 99% the same kind of tripe as that
chimaera posted upthread would be rather an exaggeration.

Richard
.