From: Larry__Weiss on
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
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
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 superseded the 1990 ISO C standard, which itself superseded the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
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
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
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: System Calls
Next: Warning to newbies