GIGUERE@WATCSG.BITNET (Eric Giguere) (03/15/89)
In article <15802@oberon.USC.EDU> Macro Papa writes: >You're quite right, BUT MANX 5.0 is way way down the line, AND a lot of >"current" programs do assume that the argument promotion is performed >(which has a lot of implications like sign extension, etc...). As you >mention, the ANSI standard ensured that 'old' programs that assumed the >"argument promotion" be performed will still behave like K&R, UNLESS >function prototypes have been added. MANX 5.0 (as well as Lattice 5.0) >library stubs will clearly be different from the current release. Granted Manx 3.6a is not ANSI-compatible; however, Lattice 5.0 is and this obviously affects a lot of users. While programmers should keep the old style stuff in mind for compatibility, they should also be thinking about the future. >The reason I am saying that MANX 5.0 is way down the line is that they re >still asking on BIX what "features" programmers would like to see in MAX >5.0 (as you probably know MANX 4.x will not be released). So you shoul >assume that you'll have to work with MANX 3.6 for quite some time. I'm not so sure that it's such a long way off.... somebody on the net mentioned July. The "features" they're asking for probably have to do with the user interface and the integrated environment (did someone tell them to support ARexx?) rather than the compiler itself, because the ANSI standard is well-documented and has been around in a stable state for about a year now. If Manx 5.0 is a full ANSI implementation, I'll be happy. If it's something like Lightspeed C on the Mac --- great environment, but the compiler needs work (as I found out when I tried to port an ANSI C program to it) --- then it might be time to switch to Lattice. Eric Giguere Computer Systems Group, University of Waterloo BITNET: GIGUERE@WATCSG Other: giguere@watcsg.UWaterloo.CA UUNET : watcsg!giguere@uunet.UU.NET