From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-17 10:22:16 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.online.be!zur.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news.research.att.com!nntp
From: Matthew Austern <austern@research.att.com>
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of
    service attack.
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: isolde.research.att.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <dilu1z6r4q2.fsf@isolde.research.att.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
Sender: austern@isolde.research.att.com
Organization: AT&T Labs - Research
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <made-on-a-macintosh-969204-20460@usenet.l1t.lt>
 <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com>
 <q22nk9.r1p.ln@10.0.0.2> <JzUb7.1653$NJ6.5860@www.newsranger.com>
 <9kp9n7$ivm$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <apesk9.env.ln@10.0.0.2>
 <sYwc7.3920$NJ6.15560@www.newsranger.com> <r1nuk9.2ua.ln@10.0.0.2>
 <3B73337F.862F8D93@home.com> <9lb7hu$72h$1@norfair.nerim.net> <3B7C6977.364
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:11:49 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12060 comp.lang.c:75036
 comp.lang.c++:83458
Date: 2001-08-17T17:11:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:

> Then the phrases 
>    "language and library" (C99)
> and
>    "language or library" (old C)
> are unperspicuosly verbose where they appear in the standard.

In C++, at least, we tend to talk about the "core language" and the
"library".  It's possible to distinguish between them, but they're
described in the same document (ISO/IEC 14882) and the boundaries
between them get a bit fuzzy around the edges.  Some important
features, like typeid, lie right on the boundary.

Also true in C90 and C99, of course.  Do you consider setjmp/longjmp
core language, or library?  And how about the new C99 generic math
functions, which can't be implemented without some kind of compiler
magic?  

I'm not picking on C++, or C90, or C99; I could come up with similar
examples in Eiffel or Java.  My real claim is that, while it's fine to
talk about "language and library" in an informal sense, or for
organizational purposes, it probably isn't all that useful to try to
draw a sharp line between them.