By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
426,179 Members | 2,175 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 426,179 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Has ANSI Approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999?

P: n/a
It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?

A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
has approved it. For example, on this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."

But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who posts
to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who everyone should
deeply respect):

http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html

it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
information as it becomes available to me".

A search for terms that you would think would find a match for C99 on
ANSI's site shows no relevant results.

Has ISO/IEC 9899:1999 been approved by ANSI?

Best regards
--
jay
Oct 23 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
41 Replies


P: n/a
jaysome wrote:
It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
Read the font page.

--
Ian Collins.
Oct 23 '07 #2

P: n/a
jaysome said:
It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
Yes, it was approved by ANSI on 22nd May 2000.
>
A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
has approved it. For example, on this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right. It
does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who posts
to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who everyone should
deeply respect):

http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html

it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
information as it becomes available to me".
Well, I suppose, if Jack reads this thread, more information will become
available to him.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Oct 23 '07 #3

P: n/a
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:13:19 +1300, Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>jaysome wrote:
>It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
Read the font page.
I did read that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font

Did I miss something?

--
jay
Oct 23 '07 #4

P: n/a
jaysome wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:13:19 +1300, Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>jaysome wrote:
>>It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
Read the font page.

I did read that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font

Did I miss something?
The front page of the standard. The ANSI approval date is in a nice big
box.

--
Ian Collins.
Oct 23 '07 #5

P: n/a
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vb******************************@bt.com...
jaysome said:
>It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?

Yes, it was approved by ANSI on 22nd May 2000.
>>
A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
has approved it. For example, on this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."

Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right. It
does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix the
darn thing.
BTW: I just did...

Bye, Jojo
Oct 23 '07 #6

P: n/a
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
jaysome said:
A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
has approved it. For example, on this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right. It
does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix the
darn thing.
....and then wait for your well-informed change to be reverted by an
ignoramus with more Wikipoints. No, thanks.

Richard
Oct 23 '07 #7

P: n/a
Joachim Schmitz said:
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vb******************************@bt.com...
>jaysome said:
<snip>
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."

Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right.
It does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix
the darn thing.
BTW: I just did...
Been there, done that, had my changes backed out. Waste of time. Wiki is
ruled by the (relatively) clueless.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Oct 23 '07 #8

P: n/a
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Rs******************************@bt.com...
Joachim Schmitz said:
>"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vb******************************@bt.com...
>>jaysome said:
<snip>
>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."

Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right.
It does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix
the darn thing.
BTW: I just did...

Been there, done that, had my changes backed out. Waste of time. Wiki is
ruled by the (relatively) clueless.
Lets see whether or how long my changes survives...

Bye, Jojo
Oct 23 '07 #9

P: n/a
Ian Collins wrote:
>
jaysome wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:13:19 +1300, Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com>
wrote:
jaysome wrote:
It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?

Read the font page.
^^^^

I did read that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font

Did I miss something?
The front page of the standard. The ANSI approval date is in a nice big
box.
You missed your typo.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>

Oct 23 '07 #10

P: n/a
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:48:19 -0700, jaysome <ja*****@hotmail.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?

A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
has approved it. For example, on this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
Google got it almost right. It was approved as an ANSI standard on
May 22, 2000. It says so right in the genuine ANSI PDF, formerly
available for $18.00 via ANSI's web site. Although I think I have
heard that the price has gone up to about $30.00.

The US delegation voted unanimously in favor of adoption at the ISO
committee vote. Ordinarily that would have automatically approved it
as an ANSI standard at the same time.

However, somebody (I don't know who) had filed a formal objection with
ANSI over the C99 standard. Due to ANSI's procedural rules, that
meant that ISO delegation alone could not approve it as an ANSI
standard, instead it had to be sent out to a larger number of ANSI
members, with time for review, comments, and finally a vote.

This took almost six months, but C99 received sufficient votes and
officially became an ANSI standard on May 22, 2000.
But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who posts
to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who everyone should
deeply respect):

http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html

it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
information as it becomes available to me".
OK, I'm a little behind on updating that page on my web site. It's
only 7 1/2 years out-of-date, give me a break.
A search for terms that you would think would find a match for C99 on
ANSI's site shows no relevant results.

Has ISO/IEC 9899:1999 been approved by ANSI?

Best regards
I'll probably get around to fixing that some day...

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Oct 24 '07 #11

P: n/a
Jack Klein said:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:48:19 -0700, jaysome <ja*****@hotmail.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
>A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
has approved [C99]. For example, on this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C

it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."

Google got it almost right.
No, it didn't. Wikipedia did. Google is just a search engine. :-)

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Oct 24 '07 #12

P: n/a
Jack Klein wrote:
jaysome <ja*****@hotmail.comwrote:
.... snip ...
>
>But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who
posts to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who
everyone should deeply respect):

http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html

it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
information as it becomes available to me".

OK, I'm a little behind on updating that page on my web site. It's
only 7 1/2 years out-of-date, give me a break.
In other words :-) your were lying through your teeth when you
wrote the last quoted sentence above. :-) You are almost as lazy
as I am.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Oct 24 '07 #13

P: n/a
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.deschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ff**********@online.de...
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Rs******************************@bt.com...
>Joachim Schmitz said:
>>"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vb******************************@bt.com.. .
jaysome said:
<snip>
>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(prog...SI_C_and_ISO_C
>
it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."

Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right.
It does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not
a
reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix
the darn thing.
BTW: I just did...

Been there, done that, had my changes backed out. Waste of time. Wiki is
ruled by the (relatively) clueless.
Lets see whether or how long my changes survives...
My change is still in, 2 days and 3 edits later. Sort of proves my view that
correcting stuff in Wikipedia is _not_ a wast of time.

Bye, Jojo

Bye, Jojo
Oct 25 '07 #14

P: n/a
Joachim Schmitz said:

<snip>
My change is still in, 2 days and 3 edits later. Sort of proves my view
that correcting stuff in Wikipedia is _not_ a wast of time.
It does? I'd have just thought that it proved Jason is on holiday (or
whoever it is that keeps backing out the corrections). Or sick, or
something.

Anyway, if you have the magic touch and can make sticky changes to the
Wiki, great - off you go, to fix all the other problems with it. See you
in a few dozen years...

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Oct 25 '07 #15

P: n/a
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:25:21 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
>The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix the
darn thing.
No use - whenever you change anything, some moron who thinks he knows
better will revert it. or worse yet, replace it with garbage and place
the page in contention mode (or whatever wikinarians call it) so you
can't fix it again.
Note that just because this doesn't happen this time, doesn't mean it
won't happen next time. its a manifestation of UB...

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Oct 25 '07 #16

P: n/a
"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vu********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:25:21 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
>>The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix
the
darn thing.

No use - whenever you change anything, some moron who thinks he knows
better will revert it. or worse yet, replace it with garbage and place
the page in contention mode (or whatever wikinarians call it) so you
can't fix it again.
Note that just because this doesn't happen this time, doesn't mean it
won't happen next time. its a manifestation of UB...
It never happened to me so far, with some 1000 edits.
hold on: it happened to me once, but in that case I was on error, and got
corrected.

That particular change of mine is still in, 8 edits later.

To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...

Bye, Jojo
Oct 26 '07 #17

P: n/a
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:

>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...
Please see a doctor.

Smiley deliberately omitted...
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Oct 27 '07 #18

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
>>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...

Please see a doctor.

Smiley deliberately omitted...
If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Oct 27 '07 #19

P: n/a
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:43:25 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
>>>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...

Please see a doctor.

Smiley deliberately omitted...

If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).
My apologies if this offended you, but I was being neither insulting
nor mocking - IMHO anyone who takes Wikipedia seriously has a problem.

Offtopic I cop to.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Oct 28 '07 #20

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:43:25 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
>>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...

Please see a doctor.

Smiley deliberately omitted...

If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).

My apologies if this offended you, but I was being neither insulting
nor mocking - IMHO anyone who takes Wikipedia seriously has a problem.
Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Wikipedia is a great resource for the
greater majority of its contents. It was found to be as accurate as
Brittania in the majority of subjects compared.

Yes, there can be problems but its a wonderful resource.

The bottom line is "trust nothing" if the results are really, really,
important. Always double and triple check.
>
Offtopic I cop to.
Oct 28 '07 #21

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
>>>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...

Please see a doctor.

Smiley deliberately omitted...

If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).
It is so refreshing to see honest dissension amongst the regulars.

When I started posting to clc (in the current incarnation), there was
absolutely no (public) disagreement among the regulars; they presented a
unified front. Very nice to see that things have loosened up.

Oct 28 '07 #22

P: n/a
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
>>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:
To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...

Please see a doctor.

Smiley deliberately omitted...

If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).

It is so refreshing to see honest dissension amongst the regulars.

When I started posting to clc (in the current incarnation), there was
absolutely no (public) disagreement among the regulars; they presented a
unified front. Very nice to see that things have loosened up.
There was never any united front. But the fact is that there is now
tension as to who can be first to state that a pointer is not really the
same as an array yet again, or that "adding integers together can cause
overflow" or that "gets must not be used" or that "we do not talk about
that". It's like death by a 1000 echos half the time in here.

Oct 28 '07 #23

P: n/a
In article <m7************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
....
>When I started posting to clc (in the current incarnation), there was
absolutely no (public) disagreement among the regulars; they presented a
unified front. Very nice to see that things have loosened up.

There was never any united front.
I'm going to say that you've not been here long enough to know.
And I'm not talking about ancient history (like decades or whatever);
just like the last 3 years or so. As far as I know, you've only been
posting here for about a year.
>But the fact is that there is now tension as to who can be first to
state that a pointer is not really the same as an array yet again, or
that "adding integers together can cause overflow" or that "gets must
not be used" or that "we do not talk about that". It's like death by a
1000 echos half the time in here.
So very true.

Oct 28 '07 #24

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:

<snip>
But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
how to improve it, etc.
There are quite a number of web based forums. Granted they probably
don't have anywhere near the expertise of this group and the topic in
such places tend to be very "liberal", (parallel discussions, for
example, of C, C++, C# etc.), but they _are_ an alternative for those
who don't like the atmosphere of this group, or comp.std.c.

PS. Once again, don't let the trolls get you down. Despite
whatever "faults" you and your compiler may have, you are still
interesting to have around.

Oct 28 '07 #25

P: n/a
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:
jacob navia wrote:

<snip>
>But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
how to improve it, etc.

There are quite a number of web based forums. Granted they probably
don't have anywhere near the expertise of this group and the topic in
such places tend to be very "liberal", (parallel discussions, for
example, of C, C++, C# etc.), but they _are_ an alternative for those
who don't like the atmosphere of this group, or comp.std.c.

PS. Once again, don't let the trolls get you down. Despite
whatever "faults" you and your compiler may have, you are still
interesting to have around.
Seconded.
Oct 28 '07 #26

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrites:
Richard wrote:
>>
The endless word games and petty bickering make this group almost unique
in all the years I have used such resources. Only in this group would
someone play such a word game as to suggest that there are "no such
things as global variables" in C.

Heathfield said that strncpy wasn't a function to copy strings.
When presented with the evidence from the standard he waved
at it, and went on arguing nonsense.

I got tired of this group.

Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
"low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
It is not wise to say such things without proof. Do you have proof?
Oct 28 '07 #27

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrites:
>Richard wrote:
>>The endless word games and petty bickering make this group almost unique
in all the years I have used such resources. Only in this group would
someone play such a word game as to suggest that there are "no such
things as global variables" in C.
Heathfield said that strncpy wasn't a function to copy strings.
When presented with the evidence from the standard he waved
at it, and went on arguing nonsense.

I got tired of this group.

Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
"low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".

It is not wise to say such things without proof. Do you have proof?
Obvious. He is the only one that posted an approval. He was the
only one that approved the insults campaign to my daughter.
Oct 28 '07 #28

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Sadly, there is no
forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
how to improve it, etc.
comp.std.c?

Admittedly, I have not followed it for *years*, so I may be way off.
Oct 28 '07 #29

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there
is no forum where people can discuss about the language, its
shortcomings, how to improve it, etc.
Of course there is. However use of it, without arousing
irritation, involves some slight discipline, including attempting
to remain on topic. It is also advisable to avoid misconstruing
all comments.

The group is called "comp.lang.c".

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Oct 28 '07 #30

P: n/a
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:12:12 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrites:
>Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
"low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".

You're referring to <ro*******@mailinator.com>, yes? I don't believe
you.
For the record, JN's claim is absolutely and totally false.
>I dared to answer him, starting my message with
"anonymous coward".
That was too much for McIntyre. I was "insulting old wolf" what an
heresy.

He took issue with your use of the phrase "anonymous coward". ...
Possibly he misunderstood the common use of the
phrase.
I don't read slashdot, and intensely dislike the Register copying that
method of identifying those readers who prefer to remain anonymous.

Deciding to post anonymously is not cowardice (consider if you were
posting information critical of your military govermnent, or
whistleblowing on your employer's illegal practices). On the other
hand where I come from an accusation of cowardice is on a par with one
of prefererence for kiddies. YMMV of course.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Oct 28 '07 #31

P: n/a
In article <el********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:12:12 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrites:
>>Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
"low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".

You're referring to <ro*******@mailinator.com>, yes? I don't believe
you.

For the record, JN's claim is absolutely and totally false.
"I am not a crook."

Oct 29 '07 #32

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
comp.std.c - and don't imagine for a moment that what your proposals for
"improvement" will meet with universal acclaim, any more than anyone
else's will.
I looked over at both
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...projects#19769
and can see that there is fairly recent committee activity.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards
does not list the TC3 that
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/
references.

Google found TC3 as
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1235.pdf

Is TC3 an approved standard?

- Larry
Oct 29 '07 #33

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Richard wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrites:
>>Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
"low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".

It is not wise to say such things without proof. Do you have proof?

Obvious. He is the only one that posted an approval. He was the
only one that approved the insults campaign to my daughter.
"When two people are gathered in my name, then they must be sockpuppets."
Oct 29 '07 #34

P: n/a
santosh wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

<snip>
>But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
how to improve it, etc.

There are quite a number of web based forums. Granted they probably
don't have anywhere near the expertise of this group and the topic in
such places tend to be very "liberal", (parallel discussions, for
example, of C, C++, C# etc.), but they _are_ an alternative for those
who don't like the atmosphere of this group, or comp.std.c.

PS. Once again, don't let the trolls get you down. Despite
whatever "faults" you and your compiler may have, you are still
interesting to have around.
Thirded. I think it would be a terrible shame if you were to leave this
group.
Oct 29 '07 #35

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <el********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:12:12 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrites:

Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
"low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
You're referring to <ro*******@mailinator.com>, yes? I don't believe
you.
For the record, JN's claim is absolutely and totally false.

"I am not a crook."
Plagiarist?

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Oct 29 '07 #36

P: n/a
Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrites:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
[snip]
Plagiarist?
One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Oct 29 '07 #37

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrites:
>Kenny McCormack wrote:
[snip]
>Plagiarist?

One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.
It must come as a shock to you that you are _not_ the King of CLC.

Oct 30 '07 #38

P: n/a
Larry__Weiss wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>comp.std.c - and don't imagine for a moment that what your proposals
for "improvement" will meet with universal acclaim, any more than
anyone else's will.

I looked over at both
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...projects#19769
and can see that there is fairly recent committee activity.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards
does not list the TC3 that
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/
references.

Google found TC3 as
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1235.pdf

Is TC3 an approved standard?
Maybe this would be answered quicker over in comp.std.c ?

- Larry
Oct 30 '07 #39

P: n/a
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrites:
>Kenny McCormack wrote:
[snip]
>Plagiarist?

One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.
Telling people who and when to reply to is not considered a good idea
in usenet. It suggests some kind of "in charge" mentality which rarely,
if ever, reflects well on the perpetrator.
Oct 30 '07 #40

P: n/a
In article <nd************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
>Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrites:
>>Kenny McCormack wrote:
[snip]
>>Plagiarist?

One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.

Telling people who and when to reply to is not considered a good idea
in usenet. It suggests some kind of "in charge" mentality which rarely,
if ever, reflects well on the perpetrator.
Well said, sir!

It would certainly make an interesting case study to look at how and why
CLC became the way it is. I've not seen anything like it anywhere else.

Oct 30 '07 #41

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <nd************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>>Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
>>Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrites:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
[snip]
Plagiarist?

One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.

Telling people who and when to reply to is not considered a good idea
in usenet. It suggests some kind of "in charge" mentality which rarely,
if ever, reflects well on the perpetrator.

Well said, sir!

It would certainly make an interesting case study to look at how and why
CLC became the way it is. I've not seen anything like it anywhere else.
Have we been featured in a "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" strip recently?

- Larry
Oct 30 '07 #42

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.