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
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.