On Tue, Mar 25, 2003, Vadim Vygonets wrote about "Re: ANSI C": > > I suppose it is a draft of a newer standard (?) called > > C9X. When people speak of ANSI C, they don't normally refer to C9X. If you > > want your programs to be very portable, you better not rely on C9X extensions. > > "ANSI C" is ISO C for more than a decade now, and the latest(?)
So what? I tend to give credit to ANSI for working on this, and call it ANSI C. I also use the term ASCII, not ISO 646... > version is C99, slightly over 3 years old now, so I argue that > C99 is the Standard C today, and this reference is more relevant > today than that to the older version of the standard. Also, the How is it more relevant? I would argue the opposite, that most C compilers do not yet fully support C99, but 99% of the C compilers you'll find nowadays are compliant with the 1990 ANSI C. > discussed piece of code doesn't use any C99 "extensions", as you > put it, so theoretically the standard should be the same in both > versions. I guess you're right, and it won't hurt to look at the C99 standard if it's more readily available. -- Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Mar 25 2003, 21 Adar II 5763 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |----------------------------------------- Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Always go to other people's funerals, http://nadav.harel.org.il |otherwise they won't come to yours. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
