Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:

In <lnbpl0yp99.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:

jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) nospam.org> writes:
Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
lcc-win.
[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?

I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of c.l.c.,

so it is not unreasonable to believe him.

Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:

In <h9hise$3uu$1 at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:

In <lnbpl0yp99.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:

jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) nospam.org> writes:
Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
lcc-win.
[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring
to?

I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90.
Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of
c.l.c.,

That's precisely why I said "may".

Then why did you definitively state

"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to
C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however."

?

Do you read Jacob's email?

Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:

In <h9hm6e$76t$1 at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:

In <h9hise$3uu$1 at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:

In <lnbpl0yp99.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:

jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) nospam.org> writes:
Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
lcc-win.
[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring
to?

I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different.
Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to
C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of
c.l.c.,

That's precisely why I said "may".

Then why did you definitively state

"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform
to C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so,
however."

?

In clc terms, that statement is true.


Weasel words.
You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's
efforts.

Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever
on the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing
the point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on
Jacob Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it
does about either me or those implementations.


Richard, off your high horse.

+ You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software.

+ You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
requests that he received.

+ You do not have that knowledge.

+ You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement
claiming
some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.

+ There is no such universe.

+ I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.

+ I made no statement about Jacob's implementations, nor any
statement that you have attacked them.

Which of my statements, above, is false?

Good luck.

There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously.

Richard Heathfield a écrit :

There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community,
it is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that
lcc-win32 be made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such
requests I remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and
nobody with a brain takes him seriously.


Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms
to no standard" because I failed to reject // comments.

Now, I have developed a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi
C90.

Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.

Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms
to C90.

You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".

On 25 Sep, 07:32, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
In <h9hn7k$84... at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:

snip

Weasel words.
You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's
efforts.

Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever
on the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing
the point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on
Jacob Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it
does about either me or those implementations.

that's how I read what you wrote. Jacob can miss some subtlties.

Richard H,

I was wrong when stating

"You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a
C90 supporting version of his software."

For that misquote I apologize.

You did state:

"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to
C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

So, you did not state "...no people...", but you did state "...very
few..." I was wong.

However, you remain ignorant of just how many such requests Jacob
has received,

as there really is a universe outside of c.l.c.

Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on
the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
about either me or those implementations.


Richard, off your high horse.

+ You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software.

+ You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
requests that he received.

+ You do not have that knowledge.

+ You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.

+ There is no such universe.

+ I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.

+ I made no statement about Jacob's implementations, nor any statement
that you have attacked them.


Which of my statements, above, is false?

Richard Heathfield a �crit :

There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously.


Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments.

Richard Heathfield a écrit :
There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously.

Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.

I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.

jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) nospam.org> writes:
Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
[snip]

Great!

Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?

But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
participating.

I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
they do not think like the "regulars" group.

So, I try to make my viewpoint continue. There is NO reason to
leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.

Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.

Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.

Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms to
C90. You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".