rex@aussie.COM (Rex Jaeschke) (02/18/91)
I agree with Dominic Dunlop's explanation. > countries, among others. (Sadly, ISO 9899:1990, the first edition of the > international standard for C, has the same technical content as ANSI > X3-159.) One of the problems with doing new technical work at the ISO C level is that there is only a handful of people present at meetings. Also, the finer points of an English language (with all its ambiguities) description can cause problems in a setting where English is a second language for half the audience. And, when new or revised proposals are presented each national rep can only go so far before he must bring it to his national group for comment. As such, the turnaround time for anything is quite long. You cannot often make a decision `on the spot'. And in any event as IR, my `votes' and any position given my from X3J11 is not nationally binding. We simply advise the National standards body here in the US as to how we suggest they vote. None the less, I believe new technical work CAN and SHOULD be done by WG14. To that end, at the Sept 1990 meeting of X3J11, the officers of X3J11 proposed that ALL NEW work be done at the ISO level. In fact, we even went so far as to propose that eventually, interpretations be handed to ISO as well. These proposals are under consideration. I think the biggest concern by X3J11 members re this is just how much technical resource does WG14 have direct access to. Since X3J11 had 30-40 people meet 4 times a year for 4 1/2 days each and things still slipped through the cracks, could a group of 5-10 do as good a job? This question was also raised by some (non-US) attendees at the following WG14 meeting in Copenhagen. As a result, WG14 and X3J11 have agreed to meet jointly on a regular basis so more of X3J11's technical expertise and knowledge of the history of various deliberations, becomes available to WG14. The 2 committees will meet jointly Dec 1991 in Milan and June 1992 Salt Lake City. I think the sensible long-term thing is for the ISO C standard to become dominant. Note that this does NOT preclude X3J11 (and other national bodies) from having informal working groups to research new topics. My own Numerical C Extensions Group is one such example. We have been approved as a WG within X3J11 and, more recently, adopted as a raporteur group within WG14. My only concern long term is that while an ISO standard will encompass more than any one national standard will likely need, we may need standard subsetting. For example, the US Govt establishes FIPS standards for validation and acceptance of compilers sold to their agencies. Currently, FIPS C is ANSI C. However, given that much will be added in the next revision of ISO C re multibyte support (for example) can and should a future FIPS domestic standard REQUIRE such support for sales to domestic bodies where the native locale does not need such support? I think not which leads me to thinking about a core ISO C standard with optional packages defined. This is my opinion only and NOT that of X3J11 since it has not been discussed by them. Rex ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rex Jaeschke | Journal of C Language Translation | C Users Journal (703) 860-0091 | 2051 Swans Neck Way | DEC PROFESSIONAL rex@aussie.COM | Reston, Virginia 22091, USA | Programmers Journal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Convener of the Numerical C Extensions Group (NCEG) X3J11 member and US International Representative to ISO C (WG14) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------