Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!spencer
From: David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Addition of nocode keyword
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:55:18 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <qp89mm$af4$2@reader2.panix.com>
References: <942b0023-9e69-4fb1-b382-e720d87e0d62@googlegroups.com> <ht6dnUjrnKFlKivAnZ2dnUU78cXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <84ba0295-fa2f-42d2-9261-401239afe110@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1572317718 10724 166.84.1.2 (29 Oct 2019 02:55:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:55:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6010

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:

>I believe nocode is a significant and necessary feature that
>should be added to C, but I'm done trying to work within the
>C Standard oversight body.  I've tried and tried and tried
>and it's not worth it.

>It's easier to write your own language that is backwards com-
>patible with C and be done with it.

This would not be backward compatible with C, which is the main reason
that it would never get consideration past reading the first line of
the submission.

-- 
dhs spencer@panix.com