Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/12/15/20:00:16
In article <3494eaf4 DOT 492512 AT news DOT xs4all DOT nl>,
Hans Bezemer <hansoft AT geocities DOT com> wrote:
>
>There is nowhere in the standard AFAIK that using the preprocessor in this way
>is prohibited. As a matter of fact, it compiles cleanly on a host of platforms.
>If you also had a look at the documentation, you would have found that the use
>of this "trick" is documented.
The problem is that your solution (make the newbie learn Hans' Version
Of C Which Looks Like Pascal) is worse than the problem (make the newbie
learn C).
In my case, all you accomplished was to make me suspicious. I'm sure
that's not what you had intended.
>You also counted the examples that are inside the comments of each and every
>function/program. If main() doesn't return anything it is allowed IMHO, but
>maybe somebody else has more detailled information on this. As far as 4th.c is
>concerned, you are right. That is an error. Thank you for pointing this out to
>me.
void main is indeed permitted inside comments, but I still recommend
against it, for reasons I am sure you can guess.
>A compiler is hard enough to understand as is. If EasyC makes that easier, why
>not. If that is a reason for you to discard the package, I'll be happy to put
>sed to work and give you a "true" C version. And of course, I'm always
>interested in comments that can improve the quality of the package.
It is not enough of a reason to discard the package, but it makes
it more difficult to evaluate. For another case of warped C,
take a look at George Carrette's Scheme interpreter SIOD.
SIOD is written in C formatted like LISP, making it hard to read
for a C programmer.
http://people.delphi.com/gjc/siod.html
If you do clean up your code, I promise to stand up and cheer. You
will have done your users and yourself a favour.
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 -