who owns C

[Maboroshi]

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

[Stephen L.]

Maboroshi wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

I think SCO is planning a claim to it soon...

(couldn't resist)

-
Stephen

[Petec]

Maboroshi wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

ANSI C is owned by just that - ANSI. To get a copy you must pay them a fee.

- Pete

[Lew Pitcher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Maboroshi wrote:
| Hi I was just curious about something for future reference
|
| Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

"ANSI C" and "ISO C" are /standards/, not software.
The standards bodies (ISO, ANSI, etc.) "own" the standards, in that they are
the ones that sponsor the groups that write the standard. The groups are not
"exclusive"; if you express the right level of interest to the right person,
you too can be a part of the standards body.

The standard is not "Open Source" (there's no 'source' to 'open'), but
implementations of the standard can be.

| Thank You if you reply
|
|
|
|
- --
Lew Pitcher

Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAx7XCagVFX4UWr64RAixUAJ4v6SvY2xWx7YG/yZoMalIQzkcLuACdHa06
SebuM5jUN/+QwrntsK5OZ54=
=c27C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jack Klein]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:48:03 -0700, "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote in
comp.lang.c:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

The C language standard is copyrighted by International standards
organizations like ISO and IEC, and the national standards bodies of
member nations such as ANSI (US), BSO (Great Britain), and so on.

The language standard itself is not program source code, so the term
"open source" does not apply.

But no one "owns" the C language itself, anymore than some could own
the English language or algebra.

Individual implementations (compilers and related tools) are a
different story. Some, like GCC, are open source. Others, such a
Microsoft or CodeWarrior, are proprietary products of the companies
that produce and sell them.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Barry Schwarz]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:48:03 -0700, "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

ANSI C is one of the generic names for the C language as defined by
one of the existing standards. ANSI is probably a trademark of the
American National Standards Institute but they don't own the language.
They do publish (sell) the standard that defines the language and that
document is copyrighted. But other standards organizations sell
similar documents which they copyright.

Open source and freeware are terms that apply to software products,
not the language itself. Some C compilers are open source, others are
freeware, others are shareware, and others are commercial. The same
is true for the link and run time "libraries" that support these
compilers. And for any "environment" (such as editors and debugging
tools) that may come with the compilers.
<<Remove the del for email>>

[Martin Dickopp]

Lew Pitcher <lp******@sympatico.ca> writes:

Maboroshi wrote:
| Hi I was just curious about something for future reference
|
| Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

"ANSI C" and "ISO C" are /standards/, not software.
The standards bodies (ISO, ANSI, etc.) "own" the standards, in that
they are the ones that sponsor the groups that write the standard. The
groups are not "exclusive"; if you express the right level of interest
to the right person, you too can be a part of the standards body.
This may or may not be true, depending on the rules of your national
standards organization.
The standard is not "Open Source" (there's no 'source' to 'open'), but
implementations of the standard can be.

<OT>
Every work has a source, which is sometimes identical to the work
itself, sometimes not. Since the printed version of the C standard
was likely not created by manually painting ink on paper, and the
PDF version was likely not created by manually typing the content
of the PDF file, it appears that the latter applies to the standard.
</OT>

Martin
--
,--. Martin Dickopp, Dresden, Germany ,= ,-_-. =.
/ ,- ) http://www.zero-based.org/ ((_/)o o(\_))
\ `-' `-'(. .)`-'
`-. Debian, a variant of the GNU operating system. \_/

[Christian Bau]

In article <40***************@cost-com.net>,
"Stephen L." <sd*********@cost-com.net> wrote:

Maboroshi wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

I think SCO is planning a claim to it soon...

You mean because they own C++, and C++ is derived from C so they must
own that as well?

[Dan Pop]

In <10*************@corp.supernews.com> "Maboroshi" <n/a> writes:

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

ANSI C is not a piece of software, so the concepts of "open source" and
"freeware" make no sense in context.

The ANSI C specification (aka C89) is hard to obtain these days (IIRC,
BSI might be still selling it). The current version of the ISO
C specification is available in both electronic and printed form,
at cost, and it is copyrighted work. Its implementations, however,
can be distributed as open source/freeware.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[James Kanze]

Martin Dickopp <ex****************@zero-based.org> writes:

|> Lew Pitcher <lp******@sympatico.ca> writes:

|> > Maboroshi wrote:
|> > | Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

|> > | Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

|> > "ANSI C" and "ISO C" are /standards/, not software. The standards
|> > bodies (ISO, ANSI, etc.) "own" the standards, in that they are the
|> > ones that sponsor the groups that write the standard. The groups
|> > are not "exclusive"; if you express the right level of interest to
|> > the right person, you too can be a part of the standards body.

|> This may or may not be true, depending on the rules of your national
|> standards organization.

ANSI is very open. Anyone willing to pay the fees can join, even if
they are not an American citizen and don't live in America. So it is in
fact true that anyone willing to pay ANSI fees can participate.

Participating through your national standards organization can be more
or less difficult. In the case of most countries, the national
standards orgainization doesn't even participate in the working groups
for C.

|> > The standard is not "Open Source" (there's no 'source' to 'open'),
|> > but implementations of the standard can be.

The standard is a copyrighted work. And it isn't distributed under any
"Open Source" license; you're not allowed to copy it.

--
James Kanze
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France [phone]

[Malcolm]

"Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Anyone can write a compiler and describe it as a "C" compiler. You can get
both free and commercial compilers for a wide variety of platforms, and of
varying quality.

ANSI publish a standard for C, and most compilers want to be ANSI compliant.
You don't need permission from ANSI to write a conforming compiler, and
there is no central testing body. I'm not quite sure what the law would say
about non-conforming compilers described as "ANSI", and whether ANSI would
have the right to take legal action.

So basically no-one owns C, but ANSI is the watchdog.

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <10*************@corp.supernews.com> "Maboroshi" <n/a> writes:

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

ANSI C is not a piece of software, so the concepts of "open source" and
"freeware" make no sense in context.

The ANSI C specification (aka C89) is hard to obtain these days (IIRC,
BSI might be still selling it). The current version of the ISO
C specification is available in both electronic and printed form,
at cost, and it is copyrighted work. Its implementations, however,
can be distributed as open source/freeware.

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit. At $18 for the PDF, and substantially more for a hard copy,
the price you pay more than covers the cost of producing it. I think
you meant "at a cost".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Mike Wahler]

"Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

I own it. Royalties! OK everybody, pay up.

-Mike

[Dan Pop]

In <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <10*************@corp.supernews.com> "Maboroshi" <n/a> writes:

>Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

ANSI C is not a piece of software, so the concepts of "open source" and
"freeware" make no sense in context.

The ANSI C specification (aka C89) is hard to obtain these days (IIRC,
BSI might be still selling it). The current version of the ISO
C specification is available in both electronic and printed form,
at cost, and it is copyrighted work. Its implementations, however,
can be distributed as open source/freeware.

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit.

Can I have a reference for that? Does it mean that
http://www.cruisesatcost.com/ is a non-profit organisation?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ca**********@sunnews.cern.ch>, Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> wrote:

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit.

A smaller quibble: it implies that it's sold at the wholesale cost to
the retailer.
Can I have a reference for that?
OED: "at cost: at the initial cost" with example "We sell..durable
clothing very close to cost"
Does it mean that
http://www.cruisesatcost.com/ is a non-profit organisation?

No, it means that they're exaggerating.

Or maybe "at cost" means something else in America.

-- Richard

[Fao, Sean]

Dan Pop wrote:

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit.

Can I have a reference for that? Does it mean that
http://www.cruisesatcost.com/ is a non-profit organisation?

In all honesty, I think they made the same /mistake/ as you. I do want
to point out that it's *probably* an American custom. We have a lot of
people that are picky on wording. Probably due somewhat in part to the
excessively large number of lawyers that like to play with words to
stretch the truth.

[Rob Morris]

Mike Wahler wrote:

"Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

Thank You if you reply

I own it. Royalties! OK everybody, pay up.

-Mike

This is a very mature group. I was surprised not to see something like
this sooner. Or, even:
I pwn C!!!!1! I pwn j00!!1!!! j00 = teh suxor!!!!111One!1

:)

--
Rob Morris

[Richard Bos]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

The current version of the ISO C specification is available in both
electronic and printed form, at cost, and it is copyrighted work.

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit. At $18 for the PDF, and substantially more for a hard copy,
the price you pay more than covers the cost of producing it.

I wonder in how far that remains true when you add in all those
Committee members' packed lunches.

Richard

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:42:47 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

> The current version of the ISO C specification is available in both
> electronic and printed form, at cost, and it is copyrighted work.

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit. At $18 for the PDF, and substantially more for a hard copy,
the price you pay more than covers the cost of producing it.

I wonder in how far that remains true when you add in all those
Committee members' packed lunches.

.... and if Dan thinks that $18 is not "at cost", he apparently doesn't know
much about book publishing. My wife works in the field & my parents in law
run a small publishing company, and for small-volume multifont print jobs,
the printing costs alone are high enough to make you wince, never mind the
cost of technical proofreaders and editors capable of understanding the
subject matter but still able to edit. $200 is cheap compared to some books
my wife has edited.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Allin Cottrell]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:42:47 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

The current version of the ISO C specification is available in both
electronic and printed form, at cost, and it is copyrighted work.

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit. At $18 for the PDF, and substantially more for a hard copy,
the price you pay more than covers the cost of producing it.

I wonder in how far that remains true when you add in all those
Committee members' packed lunches.

... and if Dan thinks that $18 is not "at cost", he apparently doesn't know
much about book publishing...

I believe you're confused regarding the quotation levels. It was Dan
who initially claimed the C standard was available at cost, and Keith
Thompson who thought the $18 for the PDF must embody a profit margin.

Allin Cottrell.

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

In 'comp.lang.c', "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

There is no more "ANSI C". There is ISO C that is own by the ISO
(International Standard Organization). It belongs to mankind.

--
-ed- get my email here: http://marreduspam.com/ad672570
The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-reference: http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/reader.aspx?lib=c99
FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/

[Keith Thompson]

Emmanuel Delahaye <em**********@noos.fr> writes:

In 'comp.lang.c', "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company

There is no more "ANSI C". There is ISO C that is own by the ISO
(International Standard Organization). It belongs to mankind.

No, it belongs to ISO; the rest of mankind has to pay ISO (or a
national body) to get a copy of it.

ANSI is the US national standards body, a member of ISO. The ISO C
standard was adopted (automatically?) as an ANSI standard. It's more
accurate to refer to it as ISO C, but calling it ANSI C is not
entirely wrong. (I may have some of the details wrong.)

BTW, "ISO" is officially not an acronym; the organization's full name
is "International Organization for Standardization" in English,
"Organisation internationale de normalisation" in French.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <94********************************@4ax.com> Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:42:47 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
> The current version of the ISO C specification is available in both
> electronic and printed form, at cost, and it is copyrighted work.

A small quibble: The phrase "at cost" usually implies that the buyer
pays only the costs of production, and that the seller doesn't make a
profit. At $18 for the PDF, and substantially more for a hard copy,
the price you pay more than covers the cost of producing it.
I wonder in how far that remains true when you add in all those
Committee members' packed lunches.

... and if Dan thinks that $18 is not "at cost", he apparently doesn't know
much about book publishing.

First, it is not Dan who made any comments about costs and prices, but
expecting our resident idiot to follow the attributions in a thread is
completely unrealistic...

The PDF sold for $18 comes for free to ANSI. The only costs involved
are those related to the processing of the transaction and the actual
data transfer (both are probably peanuts).
My wife works in the field & my parents in law
run a small publishing company, and for small-volume multifont print jobs,
the printing costs alone are high enough to make you wince, never mind the
cost of technical proofreaders and editors capable of understanding the
subject matter but still able to edit. $200 is cheap compared to some books
my wife has edited.

Except that the editing work is already done by the C standard editor.
All organisations selling printed copies of the standard have to do is
actually print it. I have no clue how close the $200 are to the cost of
the printing, but, then again, I've never made any comments on this
topic.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Dan Pop]

In <Xn***************************@212.27.42.66> Emmanuel Delahaye <em**********@noos.fr> writes:

In 'comp.lang.c', "Maboroshi" <n/a> wrote:

Hi I was just curious about something for future reference

Is ANSI C Open Source/Freeware or is it owned by a company
There is no more "ANSI C".

Huh?!? What happened to the C89 specification? Was it renamed in the
meantime?
There is ISO C that is own by the ISO
(International Standard Organization). It belongs to mankind.

These sentences are mutually contradictory.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:38:38 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Allin Cottrell
<co******@wfu.edu> wrote:

I believe you're confused regarding the quotation levels. It was Dan
who initially claimed the C standard was available at cost, and Keith
Thompson who thought the $18 for the PDF must embody a profit margin.

My apologies to Dan, and contumely is heaped instead on Keith !
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:38:38 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Allin Cottrell
<co******@wfu.edu> wrote:

I believe you're confused regarding the quotation levels. It was Dan
who initially claimed the C standard was available at cost, and Keith
Thompson who thought the $18 for the PDF must embody a profit margin.

My apologies to Dan, and contumely is heaped instead on Keith !

Where it is equally undeserved.

I don't know, or particularly care, whether the $18 includes a profit
margin or not. My guess is that it does.

The original confusion, I think, was that Dan mistakenly used the
phrase "at cost" to mean "at a cost" (i.e., not free (that's
free-as-in-beer)), whereas my understanding is that the phrase implies
that the price covers only the marginal cost of production.

I paid my $18 several years ago, and at this point I don't
particularly care what they did with the money. (And if you want to
talk about whether the standard *should* be free, look through the
comp.std.c archives, where it's already been discussed to death.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <Xn***************************@212.27.42.66> Emmanuel Delahaye
<em**********@noos.fr> writes:

[...]

There is no more "ANSI C".

Huh?!? What happened to the C89 specification? Was it renamed in the
meantime?

I thought ANSI officially adopted the ISO C90 specification when it
came out -- and also officially adopted the C99 specification as an
ANSI standard.

I don't know whether this makes it incorrect refer to C89 as "ANSI C".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <Xn***************************@212.27.42.66> Emmanuel Delahaye
<em**********@noos.fr> writes:[...]

>There is no more "ANSI C".

Huh?!? What happened to the C89 specification? Was it renamed in the
meantime?

I thought ANSI officially adopted the ISO C90 specification when it
came out -- and also officially adopted the C99 specification as an
ANSI standard.

But this fact didn't change the name of that specification. It continued
to be ISO C9[09] even after the adoption by ANSI. The title page of your
$18 version bought from ANSI must look approximately like this:

INTERNATIONAL ISO/IEC
STANDARD 9899

Second edition
1999-12-01




Programming languages - C

Langages de programmation - C




Processed and adopted by ASC the National Committee for
Information Technology Standards (NCITS) and approved by
ANSI as an American National Standard.

Date of ANSI Approval: 5/22/2000

Published by American National Standards Institute,
11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036

Copyright 2000 by Information Technology Industry Council
(ITI). All rights reserved.

These materials are subject to copyright claims of
International Standardization Organization (ISO), International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), and Information Technology Industry Council
(ITI). Not for resale. No part of this publication may be
reproduced in any form, including an electronic retrieval
system, without the prior written permission of ITI. All
requests pertaining to this standard should be submitted to ITI,
1250 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.

Printed in the United States of America



Reference number
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)

© ISO/IEC 1999

I don't know whether this makes it incorrect refer to C89 as "ANSI C".

It is the *only* C specification elaborated by ANSI and, therefore, the
only one deserving the informal name of "ANSI C". Also note that *all*
these names are informal, the formal ones looking as in the above quote:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) or ANSI X3.159-1989.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes: [...]

I thought ANSI officially adopted the ISO C90 specification when it
came out -- and also officially adopted the C99 specification as an
ANSI standard.

But this fact didn't change the name of that specification. It continued
to be ISO C9[09] even after the adoption by ANSI. The title page of your
$18 version bought from ANSI must look approximately like this:

INTERNATIONAL ISO/IEC
STANDARD 9899

Second edition

[snip] Processed and adopted by ASC the National Committee for
Information Technology Standards (NCITS) and approved by
ANSI as an American National Standard.

Date of ANSI Approval: 5/22/2000

Published by American National Standards Institute,
11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036

[...]

Yes.

I don't know whether this makes it incorrect refer to C89 as "ANSI C".

It is the *only* C specification elaborated by ANSI and, therefore, the
only one deserving the informal name of "ANSI C". Also note that *all*
these names are informal, the formal ones looking as in the above quote:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) or ANSI X3.159-1989.

I'm not sure what you mean by "elaborated by" in this context. C99 is
"approved by ANSI as an American National Standard".

One could argue that the phrase "ANSI C" therefore refers to ISO/IEC
9899:1999(E), though I understand that common usage uses the term
"ANSI C" for ANSI X3.159-1989.

Personally, I avoid the issue by referring only to "ISO C", and
specifying C90 or C99 as necessary.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:39:02 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:38:38 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Allin Cottrell
<co******@wfu.edu> wrote:

>I believe you're confused regarding the quotation levels. It was Dan
>who initially claimed the C standard was available at cost, and Keith
>Thompson who thought the $18 for the PDF must embody a profit margin.
My apologies to Dan, and contumely is heaped instead on Keith !

Where it is equally undeserved.

Its my day for apologising. Earlier on I tripped over a coat stand, and one
of the coat-hanger bits stabbed a co-worker in the face, piercing his
cheek.... yech!
I don't know, or particularly care, whether the $18 includes a profit
margin or not. My guess is that it does.

Makes sense to include one. Otherwise how to fund the next round of
committees?

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:
[...]

Its my day for apologising.

[...]

Cheerfully accepted.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:[...]

>I thought ANSI officially adopted the ISO C90 specification when it
>came out -- and also officially adopted the C99 specification as an
>ANSI standard.

But this fact didn't change the name of that specification. It continued
to be ISO C9[09] even after the adoption by ANSI. The title page of your
$18 version bought from ANSI must look approximately like this:

INTERNATIONAL ISO/IEC
STANDARD 9899

Second edition

[snip]

Processed and adopted by ASC the National Committee for
Information Technology Standards (NCITS) and approved by
ANSI as an American National Standard.

Date of ANSI Approval: 5/22/2000

Published by American National Standards Institute,
11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036

[...]

Yes.

>I don't know whether this makes it incorrect refer to C89 as "ANSI C".

It is the *only* C specification elaborated by ANSI and, therefore, the
only one deserving the informal name of "ANSI C". Also note that *all*
these names are informal, the formal ones looking as in the above quote:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) or ANSI X3.159-1989.

I'm not sure what you mean by "elaborated by" in this context.

"made by"
C99 is "approved by ANSI as an American National Standard".
But it was not *made* by ANSI, it was merely approved by ANSI. The
organisation that made the standard was ISO and ANSI merely approved ISO's
work for usage as an American National Standard.

Of course, I'm simplifying the things, but you get the idea. ANSI did
contribute to the elaboration of C99, but it was the collective work of
representants of national standardisation institutes of many countries,
grouped under the ISO umbrella. While C89 was the exclusive work of an
ANSI committee (X3-J11, IIRC).
One could argue that the phrase "ANSI C" therefore refers to ISO/IEC
9899:1999(E),
It doesn't make much sense to claim that "ANSI C" refers to a
specification whose official name doesn't start with "ANSI", does it?
though I understand that common usage uses the term
"ANSI C" for ANSI X3.159-1989.
For reasons that should be obvious by now.
Personally, I avoid the issue by referring only to "ISO C", and
specifying C90 or C99 as necessary.

C89, C90 and C99 avoid any possibility of confusion, especially when
quoting chapter and verses (C89 and C90 differ exclusively on chapter and
verse numbering issues).

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Keith Thompson]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

It doesn't make much sense to claim that "ANSI C" refers to a
specification whose official name doesn't start with "ANSI", does it?
Nor does it make much sense to claim that "ANSI C" refers to a
specification that ANSI itself says is superseded by a later
specification. I conclude that it doesn't make much sense to refer to
"ANSI C", except historically.
C89, C90 and C99 avoid any possibility of confusion, especially when
quoting chapter and verses (C89 and C90 differ exclusively on chapter and
verse numbering issues).

Agreed. Now that I think about it, I don't think I actually use the
phrase "ISO C" very often; I generally refer to C89, C90, or C99.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dan Pop]

In <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...]

It doesn't make much sense to claim that "ANSI C" refers to a
specification whose official name doesn't start with "ANSI", does it?

Nor does it make much sense to claim that "ANSI C" refers to a
specification that ANSI itself says is superseded by a later
specification. I conclude that it doesn't make much sense to refer to
"ANSI C", except historically.

In theory, yes. In practice, however, ANSI C is far more alive and
kicking than the specification that has *officially* superseded it.

C89, C90 and C99 avoid any possibility of confusion, especially when
quoting chapter and verses (C89 and C90 differ exclusively on chapter and
verse numbering issues).

Agreed. Now that I think about it, I don't think I actually use the
phrase "ISO C" very often; I generally refer to C89, C90, or C99.

"ISO C" was useful before C99, as it meant: "the C standard with ISO
numbering" (C90), while "ANSI C" meant "the C standard with ANSI
numbering" (C89). Now, "ISO C" means different things to different
people (and each camp has good arguments for its position), so it's
better avoided.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de