Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/07/03/21:15:16
The lesson (for anyone who's following this thread)
is simply this:
"Know the difference between a Code-statement (ie. "executable")
and a Declaration-statement (ie. NOT AN ASSIGNMENT, but an
"assembler" statement that adds a NAME/SYMBOL to the esisting list
of NAMEs/SYMBOLs ) in the program.
2nd point:
"Know the difference between using C and C++ statements
interchangably."
Apparently, this has been a source of soem grief for me.
THANKS for pointing this out to me.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:36:10 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
<mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net> wrote:
>Radical NetSurfer wrote:
>>
>> Lets see if I have this right:
>This is the _only_ C++-like content in your code. It is illegal C. When you
>say "gcc" without adornment, the assumption must be C. You would not be so
>clueless as to not tell us if you were using g++, would you? Just be glad no
>one decided to treat you code in an unspecified language as Fortran, Pascal,
>LISP, or Smalltalk.
>
>>
>> BOTTOM LINE: GCC only seems to complain at certain times,
>> and not others... try it sometime with my original example.
>> [or yeah, for those who aren't intuitive to have know, remember
>> the <time.h>, Rseed, etc etc stuff..ok?]
BTW: Would you believe that the (now ANCIENT) M.S. Quick C 1.0
actually understood //this_is_a_comment!
I thats why I expect it to be universally available and legal; though,
as stated correctly above, it may not be technically correct in 'C'
perse.
- Raw text -