Subject: Re: Theory #51 (superior(?) programming languages) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1997/01/22 Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Robert Harley | In the ring "modulo 2^n, where n is the number of bits in the type", | according to Mssrs Kernighan and Ritchie. If you assumed a different | ring (such as Z) that's tough. You should read the language spec | before pontificating in error. you gotta love this kind of response. it's the language specification that is in error. just as it is in error in many other ways. division between two signed integers can yield either floor or ceiling depending on what the CPU architecture supports. chars are signed or unsigned according to what the "hardware" thinks is faster. etc. the _language_ C is underspecified. no matter how well they write their specification, C remains underspecified. C is _designed_ to be "fast but unreliable". _that_ is the problem. #\Erik -- 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine -- a basic ingredient in quality software.