Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: software disenchantment Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 16:47:54 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <7tIvD.18127$RM7.167@fx24.am4> <8SLvD.288744$Ac3.256427@fx45.iad> <_dQvD.14566$xH4.8158@fx33.am4> <6j%vD.22059$6N5.6641@fx29.am4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ecf70ef72d5384f9de22a1e55ca04a4a"; logging-data="21486"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19x5tivAg4hO0/TzM9hdWVI" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CsDlHHjLRKpDaXUSURwuoYYAkRo= sha1:9aiGS4VB7g7MvhIMuQaTgWGS+8k= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:136759 Bart writes: [...] > And to lesser extent, on any compiler that isn't gcc (although clang, > another monster, is now starting to be welcomed into the fold, thanks > to being an identical clone).) [...] Since this phrase seems to be causing an argument, can you explain what you mean by "identical clone"? Personally, I would not use that term to refer to something that is intended as a drop-in replacement for something else, only for something that is identical to something else. clang is not an "identical clone" of gcc. A second copy of gcc would be an "identical clone" of gcc. Can you at least understand that most people would not use the phrase the way you did? -- 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"