Get all 1988 entries to compile

For 1988/dale it will not compile under macOS. I was able to get it to
almost compile under macOS but there was one problem. As well this 'fix'
will make it not compile under linux. One change was required which was
changing the #define _ define followed by #_ foo to be just '#define
foo' etc.

Added to 1988/isaak/.gitignore isaak.output.

1988/spinellis won't compile with clang.

1988/phillipps will compile but it is likely to segfault at least in
some systems (maybe not all).

Updated many README.md files for the changes above (and probably other
changes I've neglected to write in this log). Most changes in the readme
files are probably just formatting and probably typos as well as how to
compile and run entries nowadays. There might have been other changes.

1988/robison/README.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-Best abuse of C constructs:
+## Best abuse of C constructs:
 
     	Arch D. Robison
 	University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
@@ -7,31 +7,37 @@ Best abuse of C constructs:
 	61801
 	USA
 
-Try: robison 80 10
-     robison 40 16
+## To build:
+
+	make all
+
+## Try:
+
+    ./robison 80 10
+    ./robison 40 16
 
 The first and second parameters are optional.  You might also try:
 
-     robison 80 2   <--- can you find the bug?
-     robison 80 -246
+     ./robison 80 2   <--- can you find the bug?
+     ./robison 80 -246
 
 The author says:
 
-    This program shows that C has many unnecessary constructs, in fact
-    only "while","--", and ">=" are required.  (The two assignments at
-    the beginning could be avoided if "atoi" was rewritten with this
-    new paradigm.)  Note that the lack of both the controversial "goto"
-    and assignment statements makes the meaning crystal clear.  The current 
-    ANSI committee should look into this practical simplification of C.
+>    This program shows that C has many unnecessary constructs, in fact
+>    only "while","--", and ">=" are required.  (The two assignments at
+>    the beginning could be avoided if "atoi" was rewritten with this
+>    new paradigm.)  Note that the lack of both the controversial "goto"
+>    and assignment statements makes the meaning crystal clear.  The current 
+>    ANSI committee should look into this practical simplification of C.
 
 The following might make an interesting benchmark:
 
-     robison 100    
+     ./robison 100    
 
 [Amdahl 5890-300E with System V cc: 8.40 seconds]
 
-We suggest that you C preprocess and perhaps C-beautify this program.
-All is not what it may appear to be in this program.  When does a whi1e
+We suggest that you C pre-process and perhaps C-beautify this program.
+All is not what it may appear to be in this program.  Why does a whi1e
 not take a while to execute?
 
 Copyright (c) 1988, Landon Curt Noll & Larry Bassel.