🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <52.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.COM> rex@aussie.COM (Rex Jaeschke) writes:

[Goodness me.  Hadn't expected Rex to be in Oz -- and on the net --
already.]
> 
> ISO C is completed.
> 
> It is technically equivalent to ANSI C.
> 
> ANSI and ISO now use the same format for standards but did not when X3J11 
> started so the ANSI std had to be significantly reformatted to make an ISO 
> std document. Alas, the line number refs were not permitted to remain. This 
> conversion has been done. I believe the document is wending its way through 
> the ISO maze for final processing.

Thanks for the well-drawn picture.  Glad to hear that we'll have an ISO
standard for C just as soon as the Information Technology Task Force
(the name by which the ISO bureaucracy knows itself) is through with
its process.  You may be interested to know that IEEE Std. 1003:1:1990,
the POSIX Operating System interface standard, is identical to ISO
9945-1:1990 except for the cover (the IEEE's is prettier).  After
months (possibly years) of heavy-duty wrangling, the IEEE Standards
Office and ITTF reached agreement on a common document layout and, at
the last minute, ITTF decided to let IEEE print the ISO version as well
as its own -- provided that the document appeared on international
standard-sized A4 paper.   This is why 1003.1:1990 is the first IEEE
standard to appear on un-American paper.  ITTF even agreed, after
holding out almost until the end, to let the line numbers remain in the
ISO version.  (After all, ITTF had for some time been using the line
numbers in its requests for changes to successive drafts.)  It may be
that ITTF could be prevailed upon, even at this late stage, to retain
line numbers in the C standard, now that a precedent has been set.  On
the other hand, it may be unwise to rock the boat...
-- 
Dominic Dunlop