Steve Kowalik was once rumoured to have said: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:07PM +1100, Crossfire wrote: > > IIRC, ANSI C[1] makes no guaranty as to the lifetime of literal > ^^^ > > Not that I'm trying to get involved in this Gospel according to Oscar > thread, but Crossfire, you forgot the footnote, and now I'm interested!
Damnit. :) I was going to make a point that I refer to classic ANSI C (C89), not C99. given that I did the bulk of my C learning pre C99, and C99 hasn't really done much to make life any better, nor have I gotten my hands on any C99 references. I also have access to a printed copy of the formal C89 defintion at work which I've referred to in the past over arguments to do with operator precidence. I feel like such an old man[2] sometimes dealing with this stuff... C. [2] Of course, My age is nowhere near that of 'old man' status... -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
