🚀 go-pugleaf

In <KANZE.96Mar5131710@slsvgqt.lts.sel.alcatel.de> kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) writes:

>In article <4hfecl$33t@solutions.solon.com> seebs@solutions.solon.com
>(Peter Seebach) writes:
>
>|> In article <4hf9m1$fp8@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
>|> Thomas Koenig <Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>|> >In comp.std.c, seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>
>|> >>It is, in no place, unreasonable to assume that C means "ANSI C".
>
>|> >I usually prefer "ISO C", but that's a very minor point, I think :-)
>
>|> Yes, especially since ANSI adopted ISO's standard.  They are expected
>|> to be identical, except for the occasional lag between meetings of one
>|> and meetings of the other.
>
>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.)

I think that the point is missed by both Thomas and James.  Everybody
agrees that the C standard is the ISO one.  However, the name that caught
on is _ANSI_ C whether we Europeans like it or not.  I have yet to see
a C book with the string "ISO C" on its cover.  Except for relatively
few people, "ISO C" is rather meaningless to the C users community,  while
"ANSI C" denotes the language described in K&R2.  Compiler documentation 
keeps talking about ANSI conformance and -ansi options are quite popular.

The real world tends to be a little bit different from comp.std.c :-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland