Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > > > > for(int i=0;i++<10;)vec[i]=i*i;
> > >
> > > > Well, that's (1) not plain C but C++
> > >
> > >   That has been valid C for 10 years now.
>
> > There are still environments where the original C89 ANSI-C is *the* C standard.
>
>   I don't see how that's relevant in this specific context. It's a bit
> like saying "we should support Windows 3.1 because some old computers
> might still be using it". May be *technically* true, but in practice
> mostly irrelevant in this context.

That was also the case for my statement "that's (1) not plain C but C++", and
therefore also for your statement "That has been valid C for 10 years now." As
a matter of fact, this branch of the thread has left "the specific context"
quite a while already ;)

Bottom line: Looks like I have scored a point in this nitpicking contest, by my
opponent - after having jumped in on the game at first - now backing off into
pointing out that I'm nitpicking :P

(Yeah, I love having the last word in an argument, as silly as it may ever be
;))

Post a reply to this message