🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1311@islay.tcom.stc.co.uk> tony@htc1.UUCP (Tony Oliver) writes:
>>For a simple reason: there is no ANSI standard C yet ...
>I beg to differ.

Unfortunately, the original poster is correct.  Your request to differ
is refused. :-) :-)

Actually, you're both right, after a fashion.

>I have a copy of the book "Standard C" by P. J. Plauger & Jim Brodie, 1989;
>(Microsoft Press, Programmer's Quick Reference Series, ISBN 1-55615-158-6).
>[assorted quotations from same deleted]

The fact is, although the *content* of the C standard has been pretty
much cast in concrete for some time, it is *not* yet an ANSI standard.
The reasons are silly and procedural rather than rational.  There is no
serious doubt that the current document will become an ANSI standard
in the near future with no significant changes of content, but that has
not actually happened yet.

There is no ANSI C standard, yet.  However, given that there is no real
uncertainty about the content of the forthcoming standard, it is arguably
meaningful to talk about "ANSI standard C" as a language.
-- 
1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972:  human |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu