jcowan at reutershealth.com
Mon Aug 2 20:26:58 UTC 2004
Robert Elz scripsit:
> There's only one definition of "portable" that matters - if I code in
> this particular way, can I distribute my code and assume that it will
> work everywhere (here that means, everywhere there's a compiler that
> claims to compile C code).
"Claims" to compile C code? What if it lies, and actually only accepts Fortran?
Seriously, it's one thing to claim conformance to (a particular version of)
the C Standard. It's quite another thing to claim to compile C in general.
C has had forward- and backward-incompatible changes, and while the effort
was made to change as little as possible during standardization, that's not
the same as changing *nothing*.
If you want Perl-style portability, you know where to find it.
> If I want my code to be portable, it has to work on everything that
> is able to compile it.
My computer that I have in my pocket here has only 256 words of RAM, so your
program won't "work" on it for very large values of "your program". I don't
see that as a portability failure.
"You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com
vaccinated with a phonograph needle." jcowan at reutershealth.com
--Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the tz