🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <313C5F4B.28F@oc.com> Larry Weiss <lfw@oc.com> writes:

|> James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763 wrote:
|>  > 
|>  > I don't think that that was Thomas' point.  If you look at our email
|>  > domains, you will realize that with regards to standardization, ANSI
|>  > has about the same weight as K&R for us:-).  An ANSI standard is a
|>  > standard in the United States, but not, or at least not de jura,
|>  > elsewhere.  (In practice, of course, in the absense of a competing ISO
|>  > standard, ANSI standards tend to become de facto standards even here.)
|>  > --


|> Confusion reigns!   To be specific, the International C Standard is formally 
|> named:

|>   "International Standard ISO/IEC 9899"  (my copy is printed in Switzerland)

|> ANSI adopted ISO/IEC 9899 as their C Standard.  There is no difference between
|> ISO C and ANSI C.

It's even more confusing.  As I understand it: in the beginning, there
was an ANSI standard.  This standard was adapted, or rather the
technical content of this standard was adapted as an ISO standard.
(The only changes ISO made were in the section numbers.)  Then ANSI
threw out its standard, and replaced it with the exactly identical
(except for the section numbers) ISO standard.

Again, however, this wasn't my point.  My point was that an ANSI
standard is *NOT* a standard where I live, and it is not a standard
where I work.  An ISO standard is.  Irrespective of the contents.
-- 
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils, études et réalisations en logiciel orienté objet --
                -- A la recherche d'une activité dans une region francophone