Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Code for strtol/strtoul Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:27:03 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 23 Message-ID: <871tkcphfc.fsf@kst-u.example.com> References: <878ueqvylj.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <87sicyufk0.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <877fu5q8lf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c77ff4d35e33d1c939d3461ebde8dd0d"; logging-data="6979"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Fc3D6nk9AsUmV0zn58u7B" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3QzNy1QnGUcbadVWsmGFdpV+dKM= sha1:BmYZl+XMJgBD5m3/ufL+qOzSTls= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:58998 Tim Rentsch writes: [...] > I respect your attention to detail and also the effort you put in > to read the Standard carefully. And I'm not saying how you read > the text here is wrong. Really all I am saying is that how the > WG14 committee expects the text will be read may be different > than that, and IMO that alternate reading is not unreasonable, > even if how the text is worded is somewhat poor and no doubt > could benefit from some editing. In short, I'm dissatisfied with > what was written for this, but not so dissatisfied that I would > say it is unequivocally wrong. You okay with that? No, you must have the same opinions I do, with all the same nuances down to the tiniest detail. Er, um, I mean yeah, sure, no problem. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"