Re: Automatically generate variables

Richard Bos wrote:
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.

Well, since it's indeed hard to read, and much easier just to pick
some words and argue about them, I'll quote myself:

-----------------------------------------------------
.... we have a choice here: call a "C program" only
strictly conforming programs or use a wider definition. The former
is what I call nonsense, simply because it's too restrictive - if
one accepts such definition of a "C program", then all those C
programmers out there are writing programs in some fancy language
which is not C, and all those C programs out there are not C
programs. Then, I think the standard exists to make people able
to write C programs using extensions. And it uses term "strictly
conforming" exactly to distinguish programs which are completely
described and programs which use extensions but are still C programs,
but to not restrict itself only to those strictly conforming
programs. The syntax and semantics of "a C program" have very big
value, what would be the point of having the standard which simply
stops working as soon as non-standard header is used?

I personally don't have that wider definition, and I don't think
anyone could come up with something sensible here. And it's the
reason why *on-topic* here are only strictly conforming programs.
But there is more to C than programs using only standard features.

For instance, a C program which uses POSIX regex to work with
some strings, or a program which uses windows API to print list of
processes, are C programs as long as they don't use some fancy
non-C syntax or mechanics (insert "semantics" here).
-----------------------------------------------------

A long quote, but it was hard enough to write that, and I didn't
try to edit/compress it.

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.

How do you distinguish "C code" from "pseudo-C crap". As far as the
standard is concerned, once you have any non-standard #include
in your file, you get "pseudo-C crap". Once you have one file in
your program which uses a non-standard feature (even if the other
thousand files are perfect standard C), then the program is "pseudo-C
crap". So the question stands. You like to write pseudo-C crap,
it's fine; I still believe there are lot of C programmers writing
C programs, which are C programs even if they use POSIX api, windows
api, foobar api, etc.

Somehow almost all programs on my computer are written in C. You
may say they are written in "Pseudo-Unix pseudo-C crap", it's your
choice. But it's not a sensible choice.

Yevgen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Automatically generate variables
    ... strictly conforming programs or use a wider definition. ... I think the standard exists to make people able ... The syntax and semantics of "a C program" have very big ... reason why *on-topic* here are only strictly conforming programs. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: HeathField Strange Ideas!
    ... strictly conforming code -- but you can't print the value of INT_MAX ... keyboard input routines which are quickly dismissed to be impossible to ... we must be discussing strictly conforming programs and thus the ... (a term defined in the standard) ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: TDBC documentation, examples, syntax?
    ... This standard is long, ... code, but ISO 9075 contains more than an interface, it defines an SQL ... What I see in the TDBC API is a distinct, ... layer API", this is what we see as we write Tcl programs. ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: Memory allocation for an initialized character pointer;
    ... But this would be the kind of extension that a compiler wouldn't be ... explicitly mentioned in the standard, a compiler can now accept it in ... Since no strictly conforming program can use ... normally the int value returned from main, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: TDBC documentation, examples, syntax?
    ... base standard. ... There is no "abstraction" in your API. ... TIP 308 is irrational and unrelated to current database interface ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)