🚀 go-pugleaf

chris.dearlove@gecm.com (Chris Dearlove) wrote:

>Jerry Coffin (jcoffin@rmii.com) wrote:

>: It's a tautology that the standard has no control over non-standard
>: compilers...

>Whilst not disagreeing with you about the actual position I have
>wondered before whether ANSI could have trademarked something like
>__STDC__ and then licensed its general use to vendors who made a
>reasonable atempt to be compliant. Mind you even if legal this could
>and I guess would) have caused more problems than it solved, especially
>if use required payment.

Hmm...well, I suspect it actually could be done, though I'd tend to
leave the licensing part up to the individual certifying bodies instead
of the standards bodies.  I.e. in the US it would be NIST, and could
simply go along with NIST certification of compliance.  There is a
charge for certification, but as closely as I recall, it's not terribly
expensive. (In the vacinity of $100 or so...)

Now that you mention it, this isn't a lot different from what the DoD
did with Ada for quite a while -- you could only legally use the name
Ada (at least in the US) if your compiler had been tested.  If it hadn't
passed, you had to include a statement that you were working toward full
compliance.
    Later,
    Jerry.

/* I can barely express my own opinions; I certainly can't
 * express anybody else's.
 *
 * The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
 */



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]