mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (07/28/89)
>>While I'm on the soapbox, let me note that before I bought TC, I bought >>a number of magazines and read a number of reviews of it. NOT ONE REVIEW >>noted any of the BRAIN-DEAD FEATURES of TC 1.0/1.5 (I can say they were >>brain-dead with certainity because they were eliminated in TC 2.0), most >>of which were stupid, arbitrary deviations from **IX norms. >Sorry to burst your bubble, but in the MS-DOS world, **IX compatibility >is not going to be a review criterion. Very few of the magazines that >review MS-DOS software are likely to even be aware of these **IX "norms". >Compiler reviews generally assume that you are going to be *writing* >code, not *porting* it. Of course Unix compatibility is not an issue!!! MS-DOS is **BY FAR** the most common operating system in the world! Nothing else is even close, except the Mac. >If MS-DOS was looked at as a ghetto >of sorts, where little or no code travelled in or out, this attitude >might be reasonable; but with more different kinds of machines >Has the ANSI considered including something in the standard >about end-of-line conventions? If not, someone who knows how to get >input to them (if it's not too late) might pass it on... That sort of stuff is never going t be put in ANSI standards. They are just not in that business. Your comments will get a VERY icy cold shoulder. They simply expect that a compiler will work on the system it runs on!!!! Of course that implies using that system's file convention!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you move files from one system to another, it is your problem to get the files right. Doug McDonald