Flash said:
Yevgen Muntyan wrote, On 01/03/07 02:01:
Many people would say that it is *not* a good implementation, and that
is just one of the valid reasons for this.
Note that there are other versions of windows api headers. For instance,
mingw, which is *almost* standard C. "almost" because it uses gcc
__attribute__ thing unconditionally. But does it say anything about
program which uses it? Nope, the *implementation* may use C++ mixed with
perl in its own private parts. It's the user code that matters.
You can take mingw's string.h and compile it with some other compiler
and get bunch of syntax errors, it wouldn't mean anything, would it.
(And of course it was said like twenty times that windows.h isn't
standard C just because it isn't and need not to be)
So, one takes windows.h from his particular brain dead implementation,
an implementation which rejects its own header, makes it produce
errors, and it says anything about particular *program* which uses
windows api, the program which uses only function declarations and no
fancy syntax, no fancy nothing? Oh yeah.
Here Mark was talking about the compiler the header was *designed* for
rejecting it when told to follow the C standard. Therefore, the compiler
it is designed for does not believe that it is C, only some language
close to C.
I didn't not try to understand carefully what he's talking about when
calling me an idiot. And I can't get what you're really saying here, are
you saying I am an idiot, he's an idiot, both, or neither? If you're
seriously replying to what I said, then don't, it wasn't designed to be
treated like that. I just tried to keep myself from saying "**** you" to
MM. I didn't succeed unfortunately.
Yevgen