«

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:53:58 -0600, jacob navia wrote
(in article <fr1ip8$rnf$>):

> Randy Howard wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:27:18 -0600, santosh wrote
>> (in article <fr1d06$onf$>):
>>
>>> C99 is here to stay. Might as well get used to it.
>>
>> It is? I still don't have any compiler that supports it fully.
>
>
> Then buy one!

Why? All of the compilers I have handy work fine, otherwise I wouldn't
have them installed.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:55:10 -0600, Ian Collins wrote
(in article <>):

> Randy Howard wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:27:18 -0600, santosh wrote
>> (in article <fr1d06$onf$>):
>>
>>> C99 is here to stay. Might as well get used to it.
>>
>> It is? I still don't have any compiler that supports it fully.
>>
> I don't have an Ipod, but they appear to exist.

I didn't say it didn't exist.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Randy Howard wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:55:10 -0600, Ian Collins wrote
> (in article <>):
>
>> Randy Howard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:27:18 -0600, santosh wrote
>>> (in article <fr1d06$onf$>):
>>>
>>>> C99 is here to stay. Might as well get used to it.
>>> It is? I still don't have any compiler that supports it fully.
>>>
>> I don't have an Ipod, but they appear to exist.
>
> I didn't say it didn't exist.
>
No, but you either inferred C99 compilers didn't exist, or made a
pointless post.

I'm perfectly happy with my (free) C99 compiler.

--
Ian Collins.

Ian Collins wrote:
>
> No, but you either inferred C99 compilers didn't exist, or made a
> pointless post.
>
> I'm perfectly happy with my (free) C99 compiler.


Which is?

Ian Collins wrote, On 09/03/08 21:58:

<snip>

> I'm perfectly happy with my (free) C99 compiler.

So which free C99 compiler are you using? Current gcc versions are only
almost-c99 compilers according to the documentation.

I am aware that some of the commercial compilers conform to C99.
--
Flash Gordon

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>> No, but you either inferred C99 compilers didn't exist, or made a
>> pointless post.
>>
>> I'm perfectly happy with my (free) C99 compiler.
>
>
> Which is?
>
Sun c99.

--
Ian Collins.

Ian Collins wrote:
> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>> No, but you either inferred C99 compilers didn't exist, or made a
>>> pointless post.
>>>
>>> I'm perfectly happy with my (free) C99 compiler.
>>
>> Which is?
>>
> Sun c99.

OS? Solaris?

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> No, but you either inferred C99 compilers didn't exist, or made a
>>>> pointless post.
>>>>
>>>> I'm perfectly happy with my (free) C99 compiler.
>>>
>>> Which is?
>>>
>> Sun c99.
>
> OS? Solaris?
>
Or Linux.

--
Ian Collins.

Flash Gordon wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote, On 09/03/08 21:58:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm perfectly happy with my (free) C99 compiler.
>
> So which free C99 compiler are you using? Current gcc versions are only
> almost-c99 compilers according to the documentation.
>
> I am aware that some of the commercial compilers conform to C99.

Answered elsethread.

--
Ian Collins.

On 9 mar, 18:26, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

> obvious counter-example - it's a pointer, but not a variable.


And what is a variable ? The Standard doesn't define this term, and,
in fact, doesn't use it (except for rare examples or footnotes).
However, K&R2 heavily makes use of it, i found about 300 instances of
the strings "variable" and "variables". Alas they didn't worry about
giving a definition of the term "variable". The result is some
conflicting sentences, for instance (§5.2 about pointers and arrays) :

"the value of a variable or expression of type array is (...)"

versus

"But an array name is not a variable;"

So please, will you explain what do you mean by this term ?