|
|
ymuntyan@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>>
>> <shrug> You're right - it isn't. It's not far off, but there are
>> indeed a small number of minor conformance issues. I think the
>> only one I've ever bumped into in real code is the CLOCKS_PER_SEC
>> thing, which is hardly a showstopper.
>
> Your "I've ever bumped" here sounds like that's the only
> non-conformance issue you are aware of, but it's not. Sadly, it
> only confirms that you are advocating Turbo C just because you've
> done it and you won't admit you were wrong ("sadly" part if a joke,
> yes).
If you object to Richards statement, then you could be helpful and
list the known failures of the compiler. Don't forget to set it
for proper ANSI observance first.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from www.teranews.com">http://www.teranews.com
|
|