Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? |
| Date | 2016-12-09 16:18 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87vaut6ppf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <a0d1d564-8497-4ffc-ac99-649d36901891@googlegroups.com> <87d1h18cxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o2eiv9$m7i$1@dont-email.me> |
Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes: > On 09/12/2016 14:11, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> The `entry` keyword. They must have put some thought >>> into it to reserve that name for so long. >> >> Who is "they"? This looks like it might be a from a cross post with >> followup-to set because I can't find the parent article. > > What makes you think there is a parent post? You are right -- there is none. It was the fact I could not connect it to C that made me think it had come from another group. > I think "they" might be (?) either K&R or WG14. Yes, it must be K&R. > Although I'm quite confused in that "entry" has never been > a keyword, AFAIK. It's in K&R1 but since it's unused I'd forgotten all about it. It seems (from Richard's reply) that it's also in K&R2, but it never made it into any standard. -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:57 -0800
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-12-09 07:28 +0100
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 00:25 -0800
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 00:32 -0800
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 00:53 -0800
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:11 +0000
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-09 16:36 +0100
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:00 +0000
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:18 +0000
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-09 11:25 -0500
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 15:51 -0800
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 12:48 -0500
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 18:16 +0000
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:16 -0800
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-10 16:58 +0100
Re: How might multiple `entry` points have looked/worked? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:15 -0800
csiph-web