On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Mike Stump wrote: > date on it. If there was no major release with c17, I would ditch the > c17 spelling and just change it to c18 now. :-) I know, kinda sucks,
There is no evidence yet of anyone using the C18 name. So far, it's consistently being referred to as C17 in development, even after the timescale for the ballot / publication has become clear. But given the possibility that some people might think of it as C18 based on the publication date, being prepared with aliases seems useful. The name -std=iso9899:2017 follows the precedent of -std=iso9899:199409 in being based on the __STDC_VERSION__ value rather than the publication date. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
