On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:02:23 -0400, Rick Troth wrote: > >I have always taken robustness to mean, for example, always send >ASCII+CR+LF as a line of internet plain text, but *require* only >ASCII+LF. If the CR is present, fine. It's going to get stripped out >anyhow. (By whatever interpreter is crunching it. I'm not talking about >files, necessarily.) > No. The RFC requires it, so it's fair for Windows which (used to?) need it to depend on its presence.
>Stuff like that is NOT chaos. > If you don't like the standards, appeal for a change. >I found that XLC (for normal C, not for C++) rejected a lot of my code >where I had gotten lazy and used // for comments instead of proper /(* >... */. >In hat case, I appreciate the compile time errors. They only made my >code cleaner. > Yes. "Toleration is the mother of mediocrity." Russian(?) proerb. >But I have been bitten by IBM implementations where Big Blue were such >sticklers for the rules that WIDELY accepted exceptions just did not >fly. What a pain! > Blame the coders who mistake "WIDELY accepted" for a standard, not Big Blue. I have sometimes felt the best way to protest an unrealistically low speed limit is to obey it at rush hour. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
