Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl c |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:I'll do what I can to help out; I'm really not trying to be obscure.On 29/05/2025 20:24, David Brown wrote:[...]I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make.That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to>
C23. Once implemented, they don't change either.
I agree with all your are arguments on this,
So far so good. :-)
>except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different>
from later C standards in this regard.
I realise that my reply is going to sound glib, but I can't help that.
>
I *don't* think C90 is different. I think C90 is exactly the
same. It's the later standards that are different. Different from C90.
Being different is a transitive relationship. C90 is differentYes. And nothing else has that quality of being C90.
"from later C standards". You say that C90 is "exactly the same"
-- as what? As itself?
C99 is also exactly the same as itself.Yes, but it's different from C99.
If the difference is that you personally like C90 and dislike C99Look, Gus, if that's what you want to call yourself...well, okay, I can't in all honesty deny that de gustibus is part of it, but it's more to do with bit rot.
and later editions, that's fine. De gustibus non est disputandem
(never argue with a guy named Gus).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.