| To: | "Clive D.W. Feather" <yyyyy@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: C99 questions about freopen(NULL, ...) |
| From: | Ted Baker <yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:29:58 -0400 |
| Cc: | Geoff Clare <yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20030830140823.GA21777@squonk> <20030902041818.GI72322@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <20030902182325.GA30763@squonk> <20030904082951.GB52485@finch-staff-1.thus.net> |
> > Why on earth did the C99 folks put the "as if" clause in there in the > > first place? It seems to have caused nothing but problems. > > Because we didn't forsee the problems. I can't resist adding emphasis to the above comment. Of the many times I've seen standards (several POSIX and two versions of the Ada programming language) try to define a feature in terms of other features, it seems that every time it ended up causing unanticipated problems for users and implementors. The phrases "as if" and "equivalent to" should be forbidden to standards writers. --Ted Baker |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: New TC items from yesterdays call, Andrew Josey |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: C99 questions about freopen(NULL, ...), Donn Terry |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: C99 questions about freopen(NULL, ...), Clive D.W. Feather |
| Next by Thread: | Re: C99 questions about freopen(NULL, ...), Fred J. Tydeman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |