"Richard Heathfield" <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
// comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
of fact.

Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his pomposity of
style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request for modification.
Rather it is a statement of fact.

True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it that way?

"Malcolm McLean" <regniz... at (no spam) btinternet.com> writes:
"Richard Heathfield" <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
// comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
of fact.

Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his pomposity of
style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request for modification.
Rather it is a statement of fact.

True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it that way?

It is not a statement of fact.

First, I dispute the accuracy of the phrase "widely hated".
There are some people who dislike him, but I believe there are more
who do not.  I don't know that anyone actually hates him, though
perhaps there are some who do.  We could have a lengthy argument
about the exact meanings of "widely" and "hated", and it would never
reach any meaningful conclusion, so let's not.  The phrase is vague,
and to my understanding of its meaning, it is false.

Second, "pomposity of style" is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
I do not dispute that some people find his style pompous, but again,
there is no object standard for pomposity.

As for your odd claim that this is "not an attack", you deliberately
chose words that would normally be considered insulting.  I suppose
you did so for the purpose of making a point.  Since your point is
wrong, I won't comment further on whether it's an attack.

On the other hand, lcc-win32's lack of a diagnostic for // comments
quite simply does render it non-conforming to C90.  This is not
merely an opinion, it is a simple fact about which there can, as far
as I can tell, be no reasonable disagreement.  I could cite several
sections of the C90 standard which, taken together, demonstrate
that a conforming C90 compiler must issue a diagnostic for a //
comment (except in the rare and contrived cases where a C99 //
comment is legal, but not a comment, in C90), but I don't think
that's actually necessary.

So here are the facts.

Prior to jacob's recent announcement of a C90-conforming version of
lcc-win32, lcc-win32 did not diagnose // comments, and therefore did
not conform to the C90 standard.  (Note that "conform" is synonymous
to "fully conform".)  Richard pointed this out on several occasions.
Richard has never, as far as I recall, suggested that lcc-win32
*should* conform to C90.

This.  Is.  Not.  An.  Attack.

So how are your remarks relevant to this discussion?

I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
// comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
of fact.

Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his pomposity of

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
// comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
of fact.

Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his pomposity of
style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request for modification.
Rather it is a statement of fact.

True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it that way?

"Malcolm McLean" <regniztar at (no spam) btinternet.com> writes:

Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his
pomposity of style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request
for modification. Rather it is a statement of fact.

True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it
that way?

It is not a statement of fact.

In <lnab0gw43n.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
"Malcolm McLean" <regniztar at (no spam) btinternet.com> writes:
snip

Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his
pomposity of style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request
for modification. Rather it is a statement of fact.

True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it
that way?

It is not a statement of fact.

You have been trolled. It's a forgery. Malcolm isn't that dense.

snip