Re: good c compiler
- From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:32:44 +0000
jacob navia said:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <ln4p459xu4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...
I predict that you will attempt to do so, that it will turn out either
that Richard wasn't complaining about the extension or that the
extension is not "perfectly C99 compatible", and that you will refuse
to acknowledge this. As always, I hope you prove me wrong.
ITYM:
I predict that you will do so, but we (RH & me) will argue legalese,
convincing no one but ourselves that we are right and you are wrong.
We are very good at the legalese stuff and we will keep redefining
terms until things come out the way we want them to (at least in our
minds, if nowhere else).
legalese is the only thing that counts for them.
They are unable to do anything else.
I've been a bit snowed under today, so I didn't have time to predict that
you'd ignore the issue in favour of swapping fatuous remarks with trolls.
So I guess I won't be troubling the bookies for my winnings. Nevertheless,
your response is utterly expected, utterly pointless, and utterly evasive.
You have made a claim. You've been asked to back it up. You've failed. Same
ol' same ol'.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Antoninus Twink
- Re: good c compiler
- References:
- good c compiler
- From: bernard
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Bart van Ingen Schenau
- Re: good c compiler
- From: jacob navia
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: good c compiler
- From: Kenny McCormack
- Re: good c compiler
- From: jacob navia
- good c compiler
- Prev by Date: Re: a problem about windows memory
- Next by Date: Re: good c compiler
- Previous by thread: Re: good c compiler
- Next by thread: Re: good c compiler
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|