Re: HTML Parser Recommendation

[Craig Barnes <craigbarnes85@...>]

On 24 May 2013 00:36, William Ahern <william@25thandclement.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:45:35PM +0100, Craig Barnes wrote:
>> On 23 May 2013 23:19, Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>> > >From http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb384838.aspx
>> > (a site from Microsoft):
>> >
>> >   "Visual Studio 2012
>> >   Visual Studio includes a C compiler that you can use to create
>> >   everything from basic C programs to Windows API applications."
>> >
>> > In my eyes, it seems they do claim to support C.
>> >
>> > -- Roberto
>> >
>>
>> Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking the whole time that
>> MSVC did claim to support C, although it was stated so vehemently
>> that I started to question myself.
>
> They support C95, but have publicly stated they have no intention to ever
> support C99, C11, or any newer C standard. For all intents and purposes,
> their C compiler is dead. Their C95 support is complete, so all they do is
> make sure nothing breaks.
>
> Occassionaly you do see C99-like features, such as variable argument macros,
> the __restrict qualifier, and most recently stdint.h, but these come via
> their inclusion in the C++ standard. And sadly C++ has declined to adopt
> most of what's new in C99 and C11, including named initializers or compound
> literals. In fact, the specifications for <stdbool.h> clash, and C++ refused
> to even support the _Bool type native to C.
>
> Basically, C and C++ have diverged. Microsoft knows this, and has basically
> chosen to abandon C, though maintaining backward compatability for older
> code.
>

Isn't this almost exactly the point that was being alluded to, before these
tangential points started?