Prev: System Calls
Next: Warning to newbies
From: Larry__Weiss on 18 Mar 2010 19:42 Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I thought there had been only two TCs. Not that it really matters how > many there are, but if there is a third I can't find it and I'd like > to have a look. > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards.html - Larry
From: Dave Hansen on 18 Mar 2010 19:45 On Mar 18, 11:58 am, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...(a)kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > In article <hnt5bs22...(a)news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol (jmfbahciv) > writes: > > > <grin> My language is MACRO-10. JMF was always tickled whenever > > he assembled some code because MACRO would report a "successful" > > assembly with the comment "No errors detected". Think about it. ;-) > > "As far as we know, the system has never had an undetected error." I'm reminded of the hypothetical "conforming" C implementation that, no matter what is provided for input, displays the message "The input may contain one or more errors", and emits a dummy program similar (or identical) to Unix "true". Could be implemented with a shell script. I'm also reminded of the arguments whether such an implementation was truly conforming or not, but I don't want to go there... Regards, -=Dave
From: Mensanator on 18 Mar 2010 20:58 On Mar 18, 6:09 pm, Larry__Weiss <l...(a)airmail.net> wrote: > Mensanator wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2:43 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...(a)mib.org> wrote: > >> BruceS <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >> [...] > > >>> <OT> AIUI, C++ accepts /* */ multiline comments without artificially > >>> terminating said comments at the end of line. I don't have a C++ > >>> Standard in front of me, so I can't confirm that it isn't simply an > >>> artifact of environments in which I've written C++, but I'm relatively > >>> confident that these work the same as in C. </OT> > >> In both C and C++, a comment that begins with /* is not > >> "artificially" terminated at the end of the line. Instead, it's > >> "artificially" terminated by the next */. (In other words, I'm > >> not sure what's so artificial about it.) > > >>> According to The C Standard, 6.4.9p2, C allows comments that *do* > >>> automatically terminate at the end of the line, just as this style of > >>> comment works in C++. > >> [...] > > >> Yes, both C and C++ now permit comments introduced by // and > >> terminated by the end of the line. These were introduced in BCPL, > >> one of C's distant ancestors from the 1960s. But they were dropped > >> from C, and only reintroduced by the 1999 ISO C standard (which > >> superseded the 1990 ISO C standard, which itself superseded the > >> de facto standard of Kernighan & Ritchie's book). C++ has always > >> supported // comments. > > >> Today, most C compilers fully support at least the C90 standard, > >> but only a subset of the C99 standard. // comments are very widely > >> supported. On the other hand, they can be rejected if you choose > >> to invoke your C compiler in a strict C90-conforming mode, or if > >> you're using a sufficiently old compiler, so /*...*/ comments are > >> arguably more portable. // comments can also cause problems in > >> Usenet posts; implicit line wrapping can introduce syntax errors. > > >> (Most people here in comp.lang.c already know this stuff; I'm posting > >> it mostly for the benefit of those in alt.folklore.computers > > > Hey! Some of us folklorists actually DO know how to program. > > At least we think we remember that we know how to program. > And some of us still demonstrate it by actually programming from time to time. > > Some of us wonder why we need all of these languages... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages Oo, they even got Seed7 listed. Would you believe Seed7 actually has a function named "bigCLit"? (Perhaps the author isn't up on American slang. I know he's European because he spoke of not living on the same continent.) But where's BrainFuck? I certainly don't wonder why. > > - Larry
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Mar 2010 08:44 Nick Keighley wrote: > On 18 Mar, 13:19, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> spinoza1111 wrote: >>> On Mar 17, 2:13 am, gaze...(a)shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) >>>> In article <IU.D20100316.T165150.P1185...(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>, >>>> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgro...(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >>>>> Such edicts make one want to write code in the form >>>>> x /* The variable x */ >>>>> = /* is assigned */ >>>>> x /* its value * / >>>>> + /* plus * / >>>>> 2 /* two */ >>>>> ; /* . */ >>> Nothing wrong with this style of commenting in assembler, at all. And, >>> this code sample looks like the one byte per instruction language >> <snip> >> >> Are you nuts? > > yes, check his posting history thanks. What a relief! /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Mar 2010 08:45
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > In article <hnt5bs22t2v(a)news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol (jmfbahciv) > writes: > >> <grin> My language is MACRO-10. JMF was always tickled whenever >> he assembled some code because MACRO would report a "successful" >> assembly with the comment "No errors detected". Think about it. ;-) > > "As far as we know, the system has never had an undetected error." > <grin> yep. /BAH |