|
|
ymuntyan@xxxxxxxxx said:
<snip>
> Last time you first talked about issues being
> not serious enough because you don't need access
> to compiler source code for a fix (nice measure,
> "just fix it and you're done"), then you finally
> admitted there were even more serious issues.
Well, I accepted that you (or whoever it was) weren't just making stuff up.
Was that a wrong assumption?
> Now again, "hardly serious ones". Have you got a
> new scale?
No, I don't even have a list. Do you?
>> > 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).
>>
>> I'm not *advocating* it. I'm just refusing to condemn it out of hand,
>> that's all. For most purposes, it's fine, and I don't see why people are
>> making out that it's a heap of junk, when it clearly isn't.
>
> It's not a heap of junk, it's a compiler released
> before the standard has been published.
Yes, by about a week (or whatever). Big deal.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: - www">http://www. +rjh@
Google users: < www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php">http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
|
|