Re: *.mid vs *.midi

[Hans Aberg]

On 18 May 2008, at 22:47, immanuel litzroth wrote:

> I am talking about C. That was what my argument was about. Now you  
> bring C++ -- Has somebody pointed out to you that that is a  
> different standard? -- into the argument saying out that it does  
> not have a "formal grammar". Are you making this up as we go along?

C++ was developed out of C by automating by hand programming  
techniques; cf. e.g. Bjarne Stroustrup, "The Design and Evolution of C 
++".

C++ has the same preprocessor as C, and the same grammar sentence  
symbol, and a language subset. GCC has options for invoking the  
preprocessor and language proper separately.

> I think I'd best conclude this discussion by saying:
> 1) Haskell has the most sophisticated module system that requires  
> the implementation to deduce dependencies.

Yes, Haskell has a import and module system which is more  
sophisticated than C/C++ include and namespace.

> 2) C/C++ standards each define several languages among which there  
> is a "preprocessor language" that every implementation is required  
> to support.

Each only in effect define two: the preprocessor and the language  
proper.

> 3) You were right all along and I was totally mistaken.

I recommend the Usenet newsgroups comp.std.* for C and C++, and the  
Haskell-Cafe mailing lists.

  Hans