From: Radical NetSurfer <radsmail AT juno DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: syntax E?r?r?o?r?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:29:59 -0400
Message-ID: <54q1mssjesrasrg4ee1ekhogdfa1nqrb42@4ax.com>
References: <go9tls4tdiruq2kv68c5m6f0otoerndr1a AT 4ax DOT com> <ohnvlskl8vhi21rafs0pbse2q2do79aehs AT 4ax DOT com> <396050CE DOT ECE36EF7 AT earthlink DOT net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.202.134.155
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.202.134.155
X-Trace: 3 Jul 2000 15:32:30 -0400, 216.202.134.155
Lines: 41
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.31.79.51
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

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.