Re: C extensions

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: C extensions
Date	2015-07-09 14:27 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mnmebm$m1c$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <f904eba4-a57e-49f3-8b50-3ed068695913@googlegroups.com> <mngupl$ela$1@dont-email.me> <f074be3b-22f4-4f5a-bcae-0794c604e2c0@googlegroups.com> <559D4EB2.8020708@verizon.net> <5759ce7b-f1b1-4ac4-9d53-8d91a868d20d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/09/2015 12:25 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 9:24:27 AM UTC-7, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 07/08/2015 11:28 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> ...
>>> But extensions are clearly expected by the standards and the industry.
>>> All that the standard requires of extensions is that they be adequately
>>> documented. Extensions do not make a new language and they meet the
>>> standard. They do not make a new language. Extended C is still C.
>>
>> This is an appropriate place to discuss things such as whether and how
>> an extension could be implemented in a way that the compiler still
>> conforms to the C standard. However, extensions themselves do create a
>> new language. You could, for instance, have a compiler that has an
>> extension that interprets  "#pragma lang pascal" as switching the
>> language from C to pascal (I don't know pascal well enough to suggest
>> the appropriate approach for switching back to C, but I assume it could
>> be done). Do you think that would justify engaging in long discussions
>> about pascal in this newsgroup?

I see you didn't bother answering that question. Is there anything I
could do to encourage you to do so?

> Your position is that any extension makes C into a new langauge?

More accurately, that the extension itself is a new language, best
discussed elsewhere, except insofar as the discussion is about whether
or not the extension is conforming.
-- 
James Kuyper

Thread

C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 13:45 -0700
  Re: C extensions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-06 21:59 +0100
    Re: C extensions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-06 18:59 -0500
    Re: C extensions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-07 15:54 +1200
      Re: C extensions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-06 21:05 -0700
        Re: C extensions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-07 17:52 +1200
      Re: C extensions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-07 08:24 -0500
  Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-06 18:46 -0400
    Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 08:20 -0700
      Re: C extensions "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 08:39 -0700
        Re: C extensions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-09 05:41 -0700
          Re: C extensions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-07-09 22:18 -0500
      Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-07 12:25 -0400
        Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 08:28 -0700
          Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-08 12:24 -0400
            Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 09:25 -0700
              Re: C extensions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-09 14:27 -0400
                Re: C extensions David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 10:04 -0700
  Re: C extensions Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-07-07 14:59 +0200

csiph-web