>>On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:18:18 GMT, Rich Teer
>>>>If the C programs have UNIX system calls such as fork(), alarm(),
>>>>etc.., we should call it UNIX programs, not traditional C programs?
>>>WHo calls them C programs? Personally, I'd call the UNIX programs.
>>If they are written in C they are C programs, whatever libraries they
>>happen to use. Calling them "UNIX programs" helps no one, since a "UNIX
>>program" could be written in any language from raw binary to COBOL.
> (Reading and posting from comp.unix.shell - keep that in mind)
> This, incidentally, is *not* the view held in the (curiously named)
> newsgroup "comp.lang.c".
I don't believe the above statement is true. They are C programs,
using libraries and headers. If the definitions are linked (by
implementation-defined means), then well-defined behavior will
occur in these functions' invocations.
It is simply that these functions, libraries and headers are not
part of C themselves, and therefore strictly off-topic. If you
were to provide C definitions for these functions, which
themselves used only facilities which were defined, either
elsewhere in the post or by the C standard itself, no one will
complain. The chief problem is that people write such posts
without including such definitions, expecting people to assume
the definitions, which makes them off-topic.
> They maintain that system-specific stuff, be it:
> lpStr LpHand EXPORT WinPlaceWin(a,b,c);
> is, plain and simply, not C.
It clearly is C. The first is either a macro call or (more
probably) a function call. The latter is hard to be sure of
without more definitions in place. Neither have defined results
without more definitions in scope. They are off-topic until such
definitions are given.