> Perhaps Steve Johnson can chime in on this? I suspect he'd know the history
> here well.
The origins of void were discussed 4-7 nov 2017 on this list.
> From: Clem Cole
> Im pretty sure I remember void being in typesetter C also.
Hmm. In the two original 'help' files I have about the changes to C (the term
'typesetter C' doesn't appear, but it's pretty clear that's what the subject
is), available through here:
http://gunkies.org/wiki/Typesetter_C
the term 'void' does not appear (although most other stuff - e.g. unions, bit
fields, typedef, yadda yadda - does).
Noel
Hello everyone
Hello everyone, I have a question, I looked at the source code of early Unix, found that a lot of.c files did
not contain header files, so compiler compiler will not error?
Caipenghui
> Has anyone experimented with building Unix using C++, to take
advantage of strong typing? My guess is no--it would be a Herculean
task likely to introduce more bugs than it would fix.
How Unix didn't get written in C++:
When Bjarne Stroustrup joined Bell Labs, he hoped to write an
operating system, but he wanted to do it in an object oriented
language, so he took a small detour to make an object-oriented
sibling of C. That turned out to be a maelstrom from which he
never escaped.
Doug
Hello everyone
I had a problem compiling a piece of c code from the book. The result of running the book is 5050, but the compiler is 100. I don't know which is right, please help me to see which is wrong. Thank you very much!
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int i, sum = 0;
i = 1;
while ( i <= 100) {
sum = sum + 1;
i++;
}
printf("%d\n", sum)
return 0;
}
| |
cc
|
|
邮箱：caipenghui_c(a)163.com
|
签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制
> From: Steve Simon
> well spec'ed machines where more common in the past.
Err, engineering data is not the same thing as a formal specification. If not,
almost every computer built could be said to have a 'formal spec' - there
usually are engineering documents for anything that was produced in any sort
of quantity.
Also, whether said engineering info is publicly available or not (which seems
to be another of your observations) is an orthogonal axis.
Noel
> I also note that the general response here was the one I almost always
> get when I mention this stuff to people, which is near silence.
Don’t take that as disinterest. For me at least it simply reflects that
I need to find some time to read up on and digest the points you were making.
Paul
An arguable distinction:
I thought hard about claiming priority for -ms. Joe Ossanna intended
option -m to foster macro packages from the outset. -man was an early use,
hidden in the man command. But -man was not packaged (in the sense of
being an announced feature that can be used from its external description)
until v7. -ms appeared in v6.
Doug
Arnold Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
> Doug McIlroy <doug at cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Why create ms when you have mm?
>>
>> Well, the real reason is that ms was the very first macro package.
>> It has held up spectactularly well, evolving much less than the
>> underlying [ntg]roff.
>>
>> Doug
>
> Or say, rather, the first *general purpose* macro package. The man
> macros predate it. :-)
