From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4c36397125ce19a96ba073306ca1ef5e@borf.com> From: Brantley Coile To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] "ridiculous benchmarks"-r-us In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-xmfxussccbysftsrqhgnzqutku" Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:52:55 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: b59997f8-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-xmfxussccbysftsrqhgnzqutku Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What possible rationale did they have for adding nested procedures to C? Did they call them mid-functions in the standard? Why rename a concept just because it's 47 years old! Brantley --upas-xmfxussccbysftsrqhgnzqutku Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from relay.borf.com ([205.185.197.204]) by edsac; Fri Jan 9 13:31:24 EST 2004 Received: from [130.203.4.6] by borf.com ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:37:56 -0400 Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id 699EA19D19; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:30:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 55F3619BF8; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:30:10 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id 9067419ABA; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk (mercury.bath.ac.uk [138.38.32.81]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id B1A9219BF8 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from news by mercury.bath.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 1Af1En-0001si-00 for 9fans@cse.psu.edu; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:20:01 +0000 Received: from GATEWAY by bath.ac.uk with netnews for 9fans@cse.psu.edu (9fans@cse.psu.edu) To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Icarus Sparry Message-ID: Organization: University of Bath Computing Services, UK References: <0af7b239ace45c567f28524ff95b5613@plan9.ucalgary.ca> Subject: Re: [9fans] "ridiculous benchmarks"-r-us Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:19:11 GMT X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) On 2004-01-09, mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca wrote: > It took me much longer -- until I looked at their "C" code (term used > very loosely) trying to compile it on Plan 9... There are multiple > gems in it including ++ on a double, mid-function variable definitions > (C-code, right?) C99 added mid-function variable definitions. --upas-xmfxussccbysftsrqhgnzqutku--