ZZ>
  > It's amazing how many people aren't aware of how to even
  > code a "hello, world" program in C!  Check out the Watcom
  > docs, they use "void main" too.  It's disgusting.
ZZ>

   A man after my own heart ... (-:

  But see the latest in CPLUSPLUS.  ISO C++ is going to be different to
  ISO C in this respect, it seems.

ZZ>
  >                                                    I even
  > mentioned it to Watcom, but they certainly didn't change
  > it in 10.0a (going from 10.0).
ZZ>

  It is a shame that more and more it seems that the verb should now be
  in the past tense.  Watcom *had* an excellent bug fix policy.

  There's a bug in their resource compiler that they *still* haven't
  fixed, despite an outstanding request for them to do so of over four
  months now.  If you generate an empty dialogue (i.e. no controls) in
  your resource file, the Watcom resource compiler will fail to compile
  it.

  Plays havoc with prototyping small applications under Guidelines ...

ZZ>
  >                                 I've also seen some IBM
  > stuff do the same thing (in the PC environment).  Never saw
  > them do that on the mainframe though.  C/370 was a
  > beautifully clean compiler.  Practically no extensions
  > whatsoever.  Totally 100% ISO conforming, but no open(),
  > stricmp() etc.
ZZ>

  In other words, 50% of all code (written by numpties who assumed that
  stricmp() was a standard function) couldn't be ported to it, yes ?  (-:

ZZ>
  >                 BTW, Borland C++ 1.5 documents stricmp() as
  > being ANSI C.  ROFL!
ZZ>

  (-:

  What amuses me is that the 1.5 library documentation even has
  checkboxes for a (non-existent) ANSI C++.  Talk about hubris.

  What's even more amusing is that if the current draft ISO C++ standard
  (April 1995) is approved, that library reference will be so much pure
  bollocks, since the header names will be all wrong for ISO C++ ...

  > JdeBP <
___
 X MegaMail 2.10 #0:
--- Maximus/2 2.02