home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.nyu.edu!schonberg!dewar
- From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada)
- Date: 11 Apr 1996 22:34:46 -0400
- Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
- Message-ID: <dewar.829276268@schonberg>
- References: <4kk9e1$he1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: schonberg.cs.nyu.edu
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
-
- Chuck said
-
- "There are a lot of things that are intentionally not spelled
- out by standards. Sometimes this is because the standard
- writers want to limit the scope of the document to keep it
- legible and usable, and sometimes it's because they don't want
- to preclude implementors from offering usable products
- based on current technology or from adding capabilities and
- value to future products."
-
- This is a sorry excuse for an obvious oversight if you ask me. All that
- is needed for read is one of the following two sentences:
-
- The buffer must be long enough to accomodate the data actually read
-
- or
-
-
- The buffer must be at least the length corresponding to the value of
- the count parameter.
-
- I don't really care which is chosen, I prefer the second but could
- certainly live with the first, but I do NOT find it acceptable to
- leave this unstated. This kind of carelessness in specification
- which seems endemic in the C runtime library, is bound to lead
- to misunderstandings and portability problems. No one is asking
- for over-specification, or for exhaustive and exhausting formality,
- just for a clear informal statement of what is intended!
-
-