From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190704262156t7b3fe10y5f9d81df3130bfff@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:56:11 +1000 From: "Bruce Ellis" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60704262044y4d205736g80f840130293ce66@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3e1162e60704262044y4d205736g80f840130293ce66@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 507f40f6-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 official C went downhill more than 20 years ago. fortunately you can still program in what i called "Safe-C" in some flippant paper. i was particulalry impressed with VS2005 which has wchar_t as a fundamental type which can't be assigned to anything. shoot me, i did a if(sizeof(wchar_t) == sizeof(Rune)) etc. it seems that subjective C is more popular than objective C. brucee On 4/27/07, David Leimbach wrote: > Those are all real C99 features :-). > > Whether anyone really thinks they're worth a damn is another question. > > On 4/26/07, erik quanstrom wrote: > > are these c99 "features" from /sys/src/cmd/cc/c99 really features > > or are they "unwanted"? > > > > Not done (yet?): > > 11. _Complex, _Imaginary, _Bool > > 18. Notation for universal characters \uXXXX > > 26. _Bool, float _Complex, double _Complex, long double _Complex > > > > - erik > > > > > -- > - Passage Matthew 5:37: > But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever > is more than these cometh of evil. >