home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sundog.tiac.net!stanr
- From: stanr@tiac.net (Stan Ryckman)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.std.c
- Subject: Re: Coding Standards are ignorant
- Date: 18 Mar 1996 21:07:37 GMT
- Organization: Amber & Sneakers Fan Club
- Message-ID: <4ikjap$59i@sundog.tiac.net>
- References: <4gum82$14v4@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <4ifq40$i87@sundog.tiac.net> <MIB.96Mar18105957@gnu.ai.mit.edu> <4ikh3o$2kv@sundog.tiac.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sunspot.tiac.net
-
- Sorry to followup to my own post. I don't do it often.
-
- In article <4ikh3o$2kv@sundog.tiac.net>, Stan Ryckman <stanr@tiac.net> wrote:
-
- >(All that's needed for printing whatever_t types would be confirmation
- >that they are no larger than unsigned long. I think that allowing
- >them to be larger would break ANSI even if "long long" were an
- >allowed extension.)
-
- I now think this only applies to ptrdiff_t, size_t, and wchar_t.
- Other things (pid_t, for example, since ANSI has no notion of pid's)
- might break Posix under such circumstances, but not ANSI, if too
- large, but I make no pretense about even having read Posix standard.
-
- ><now running to edge of ring and tagging experts to jump in>
-
- Still applies :)
-
- Cheers,
- Stan.
- --
- Stan Ryckman (stanr@tiac.net)
- (Apologies for non-responses or late responses to some posts;
- .newsrc was trashed and I'm trying to get it back to where it was.)
-