Re: [OT] lcc first experience

jacob navia wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> Harald van Dijk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:45:24 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
>>>> If you ever actually try "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" on gcc, you will
>>>> discover that (barring possible errors) it doesn't
embrace-and-extend.
>>>
>>> This translation unit is accepted without any diagnostic by gcc -W 
>>> -Wall -
>>> ansi -pedantic:
>>>
>>> int __attribute__((const)) zero(void) { return 0; }
>>>
>>> Does that mean the code is valid C, that this is an error in GCC, or 
>>> that GCC does embrace-and-extend?
>>
>>     No, no, and no, as I suspect you already no.
>>
> 
> Obviously if lcc-win would have something like that you would
> rant with no end!

     Can you find even one instance where I have said anything
at all about a conforming extension in lcc-win32?  Just one
instance; you don't need to find an entire endless rant, just
find one count them one complaint from me about a conforming
extension.  (Note: Advice to avoid using extensions except when
nothing else suffices do not count as complaints about the
extensions, just as warnings not to abandon ****tability without
need.)

     Go ahead, Jacob: Give us an actual example of my endless
rants about your implementation of a conforming extension --
otherwise, we'll be forced to conclude that you have imagined
it all, and are angry at your own imagination.

> When gcc does the same in a MUCH more intrusive way, then it is OK of
> course, even if the -ansi flag is present!

     If you will allow your red rage to recede for just a moment,
your vision may clear to the point where you are able to recognize
that __attribute__ cannot appear as an identifier in any strictly
conforming program.  Hence gcc's use of __attribute__ does not
affect any strictly conforming program, not even a little tiny
bit.  You'll have to explain why "no effect at all" counts as
"MUCH more intrusive."

> When I have forgotten some function in my stdlib.h that shouldn't be 
> defined there there are rants without end, "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" etc etc.

     Perhaps.  But you have accused me personally of doing the
ranting, and I deny the charge.  Prove me wrong if you can: If
you can, I will apologize, and if you cannot I will accept your
apology in this forum.

     Yet another gauntlet is on the ground before you, Jacob.
Will you pick it up, or just let it lie there with the others?

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]