From: "Julian Aubourg" <julian AT doomworld DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <3d71a27d DOT 23705885 AT news DOT nzwide DOT ihug DOT co DOT nz> <mqb8nuoav2evvgeefdoj9r2gdfa0vqmk71 AT 4ax DOT com> <3d746b3c DOT 3046168 AT news DOT nzwide DOT ihug DOT co DOT nz> <Xns927E8AC415B4Craf256com AT 213 DOT 180 DOT 128 DOT 20> <3d795645$0$24320$79c14f64 AT nan-newsreader-02 DOT noos DOT net> <200209070134 DOT g871YGP03030 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <001f01c25614$e8cd52a0$2ca0c6d4 AT noos DOT fr> <200209070229 DOT g872TOl03706 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: No new line at end of file?
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:58:27 +0200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3d7a0313$0$8699$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
Organization: Noos
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Sep 2002 13:45:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.160.44
X-Trace: 1031406355 news.noos.fr 8699 212.198.160.44
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT noos DOT fr
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> No, --ansi is there to get rid of gcc-specific features that
> *conflict* with the ANSI standard.  It's not an excuse to add random
> incompatibilities otherwise.

Sorry. I thought this were a conversation, not a word-playing contest.
English is not my mother tongue so, obviously, there's a need for some
intellectual honesty from the other side. Re-writing what I have written
another way with the blatent intent to confuse me is surely a lot of fun.
Getting rid of the newline requirement would exactly be a "gcc-specific
feature that *conflicts* with the ANSI standard" that's exactly what I said,
*read*. The real thing we do not agree on is the fact this would be a RANDOM
feature.
Do you consider BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY as  a random feature? I'm afraid yes
(just read again Joel's message and you'll see that's his problem).
But who am I to discuss this issue? You're right, I'm wrong and there is no
argumentation possible.
Again, I'm perfectly aware this is a GCC issue but does it mean we can't
discuss such choices? What is the open-source community about? Closed-minded
people in secret rooms that decide for the world? Should I take the source
and make an alternate compiler that only modifies a couple lines or is it
more clever to discuss the issue?
Now flame me for being insolent, for disrespecting the king, I don't expect
anything out of this message anyway. I've seen enough electronic communities
to recognize the one-word-answering chief. And I know he never listens... at
least not in public.