emjej@uokvax.UUCP (01/19/84)
#R:mcvax:-558400:uokvax:3000015:000:484
uokvax!emjej Jan 17 13:57:00 1984
/***** uokvax:net.lang.c / mcvax!guido / 1:18 am Jan 11, 1984 */
Steve Summit says:
Shun implicit declarations or type conversions -- they'll get you
in the end.
Isn't this a nice example of superstition in programmers?
Guido van Rossum, {philabs,decvax}!mcvax!guido
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, (CWI, formerly MC), Amsterdam
/* ---------- */
Not when the language is so poorly defined that no one knows with certainty
what *should* happen.
James Jonesedhall@randvax.UUCP (01/21/84)
--------------------------------- I had no difficulty figuring out what the result *should* be. The C Programming Language seemed pretty clear, both in the text and in the reference manual. My confidence was a bit shaken when I found the problem in the Ritchie compiler (which I sort of took as a `standard'), but as Dennis Ritchie's article said, this was an oversight that since has been corrected. All in all, I find C to be internally consistant, such that a new (to me) construct `looks right' or `looks wrong' without my having to look in the reference manual and see. That's the beauty of `one-person' languages, as opposed to committee efforts. Warts and all, at least it's only one person's viewpoint to get used to. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall (UUCP) edhall@rand-unix (ARPA)