> 
> No, it really isn't.  Just think about segmented memory schemes.

which are also sick kludges. 

> The complete lack of specification also says that you can use any *other*
> scheme you want.

this is true. 

> 
> Nothing promises that pointers within different objects can be meaningfully
> compared for "greater than" or "less than", for instance.  The language
> specifically *forbids* any attempt to make sense of such comparisons.

Not according to Dennis: "..A pointer to one type may be converted to a
pointer to another type. The resulting pointer may cause addressing
exceptions upon use if the subject pointer does not refer to an object
suitably aligned in storage." 
The only caveat here is alignment, obviously reflecting the PDP111/VAX11
origins. 

> 
> C originated on flat memory machines; however, it wasn't designed to require
> or assume them.  It has some quirks that probably originated as assumptions
> about those machines, but it's evolved since then.
> 
> In a couple weeks here, you'll be able to get the C9X spec and see for
> yourself where the language is these days.  ;-)

and just who goes about deciding how to 'change' a language??? that's like
forming committees to redefine the meaning of the word 'hamburger'


> (Distressingly, I'm told it's now the official standard, even though there are
> probably no more than 50 people in the world who have copies.  Ugh.)

who declared it a 'standard' and how do they go about doing that? eh? 
don't people see how absolutely ridiculous it is to just up and announce
that all of a sudden the language that is C is no longer C? 
My arguments about linear address spaces stem from a: that [effectively]
this is the situation in all machines that run NetBSD and are hence the
scope of this list, and b: that machines which don't possess somethign
that can be treated as a linear address space are not particularly
becoming as the targets of C compilers. One certainly _could_ write a C
compiler to generate code for a matrix of transputers. One certainly would
_not_ expect the result to be anywhere near elegant, normal, or very much
resemble C on, say, a VAX, aside from syntax. So do the C9x people decide
that we need more andmore libraries? for gods sake, there are other
languages that have all that overhead! C is beautiful for its simplicity! 
I wont even get into the argument about the standard C library. 
Are 'they' trying to make C into C++ or something? Can't they leave well
enough alone? if they have such a burning desire to make languages, why
dont they just make new languages instead of destroying old ones? 

oi!

isildur