Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #105799
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Return statement: anything goes? |
| Date | 2017-03-11 17:47 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <877f3vyach.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <e06a31f8-6c98-4fe3-a87f-aaddbef8d138@googlegroups.com> <87inngy57x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <oa0pct$9ll$1@dont-email.me> <87d1dnyi73.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <oa18ji$l75$1@dont-email.me> |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/03/2017 14:57, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/03/2017 01:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> bart4858@gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>>> My problem (and this is one example) is that if I'm too strict, then I
>>>>> may not be able to compile existing code that might have passed the
>>>>> lower standards of other compilers.
>>>>
>>>> It's more a matter of matched the language standard. That's why
>>>> rejecting correct programs like:
>>>>
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>> int f(void) { puts("OK"); }
>>>> int main(void) { f(); }
>>>>
>>>> would create a new dialect.
>>>
>>> It would be a better, safer dialect then.
>>
>> It would be safer. Some people would argue that a compiler that rejects
>> some C programs is not "better", so that one would be endlessly
>> debatable.
>>
>> But this raises the question of why you would implement C at all.
>
> Just for fun.
Ah, I see. You can do pretty much what you like then. Making it
slightly different to standard C is fine by the criterion of doing it
for fun.
<snip>
--
Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-10 19:13 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:59 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-10 12:34 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-10 20:17 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? bart4858@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:17 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-11 10:30 +1300
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-11 01:25 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 12:11 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-11 14:57 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 16:31 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 17:57 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 10:59 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 19:34 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 11:59 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 12:26 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 12:22 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-11 12:42 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 13:01 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> - 2017-03-13 16:25 -0500
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 16:43 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 18:13 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 18:27 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? gordonb.rlpr3@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-13 16:18 -0500
Re: Return statement: anything goes? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 12:44 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-11 07:43 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 18:34 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-11 10:43 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-10 12:27 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-03-10 22:06 +0100
Re: Return statement: anything goes? bart4858@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:26 -0800
Re: Return statement: anything goes? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-12 05:29 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 10:52 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-12 12:19 +0000
Re: Return statement: anything goes? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 12:51 +0000
csiph-web