Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/12/12/21:18:29
In article <34910cce DOT 1337533 AT news DOT xs4all DOT nl>,
Hans Bezemer <hansoft AT geocities DOT com> wrote:
>On 12 Dec 1997 05:48:59 GMT, "Jack Klein" <jackklein AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> wrote:
>
>>2. Since this is a group about programming in standard C, and
>>linking to other languages is outside the standard, why post it
>>here?
>Simply because this is a library, written in C, to be used with C. That is why
>it was developed in the first place. It is even written in the most standard C
>you can imagine. It is used on a large number of platforms. But the other point
>you put makes it quite interesting from a philosophical point of view. Must a
>scripting language for C be standard C (like SALT for Telix)? Personally, I
>don't think the standard applies to the scripting language, only to the code
>that implements the scripting language.
I found your description intriguing - I'm looking for a tiny Forth
to use as a scripting language - so I took a look at your program.
The first thing I came across was a file called easyc.h, containing
things like:
#define begin { /* like Pascal */
#define end } /* like Pascal */
In horror I grepped the .c files to see if this was actually used
anywhere. You bet. The first file (4th.c) I looked into contained:
#ifdef ANSI_C
void main (int argc, char **argv)
#else
void main (argc, argv) int argc; char **argv;
#endif
begin
And so on. Here is more entertaining statistics:
evelin:~/4th/source$ grep "void main" *.c | wc
25 185 1208
Any claim that this is the most standard C imaginable is clearly
exaggerated.
Ulric
--
"You say to-mah-to, I say to-mah-to, and he says to-mah-to,
but ISO disagrees with all three of us and says to-mah-to."
- Raw text -