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: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-16 06:50:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!news.worldonline.nl!newsclients!news.worldonline.nl!not-for-mail
From: info@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of
       service attack.
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:25:47 GMT
Organization: Go wash your mouth.
Message-ID: <3b7bc508.612406700@news.worldonline.nl>
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> <3B6F312F.DA4E178E@home.com>
 <23lok9.ioi.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B70AB15.35845A98@home.com>
 <qrdsk9.env.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B721FF5.B7D854F6@home.com>
 <HGIe7.17812$1p1.1427858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <3B7BC847.61D7EF55@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vp177-168.worldonline.nl
X-Trace: nereid.worldonline.nl 997969763 27965 195.241.177.168 (16 Aug 2001
 13:49:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@worldonline.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2001 13:49:23 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11988 comp.lang.c:74711
 comp.lang.c++:83090
Date: 2001-08-16T13:49:23+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote:

> David Thompson wrote:
> > Not true.  In any conforming implementation of either C or C++
> > sizeof "ab" is 3.  Perhaps you meant one of two other things:
> 
> Maybe that's now true with the C99 standard. But it is definitely
> _not true_ of _many_ existing pre-C99 compilers!

It was true before the C99 Standard, as well. Of course, sometimes
compilers will get things wrong. But you can't blame the language for
that; blame the implementation instead.

Richard