In article <87k7ucd14e.fsf at mathdogs.com>,
Mike Coleman <mkc+dated+1012435144.b96cdc at mathdogs.com> wrote:
>Tim Cutts <timc at chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> I thought Rasmol was indeed written in C. If that's the case, you won't
>> find any C++ code for it anywhere. Being pedantic of cours, if it's
>> valid ANSI C, it will compile on a C++ compiler, and so could be said to
>> be C++ source. :-)
>>Actually, this isn't strictly correct. This page goes into some detail
>>http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm
That's an interesting and very useful document. Thanks for the link!
One thing it makes clear, which is worth noting, is that a lot of
current C code is going to become invalid C anyway, when and if C99 is
widely adopted. Many people, more knowledgeable than I, that I have
spoken to seemed to have a rather low opinion of C99... I don't know
enough about it to comment.
Tim.
