steve@aardvark.UUCP (Steve Willoughby) (02/16/90)
I'm sure this has come up several times in the past, but I just got my
news feed re-established and haven't been connected for several months...
Can anyone tell me where I can get the latest copy of the ANSI C committee's
draft standard?
Thanks,
Steve Willoughby (e-mail replies to the address below, NOT the Reply-To: line
in the header)
--
Steve Willoughby |-------------------------------------
| "There's no point in being grown up
sun.com!nosun!tessi!aardvark!steve | if you can't be childish sometimes."
uunet!tektronix!tessi!aardvark!steve | -- Dr. Whohenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/17/90)
In article <147@aardvark.UUCP> steve@aardvark.UUCP (Steve Willoughby) writes: >Can anyone tell me where I can get the latest copy of the ANSI C committee's >draft standard? The standard is now approved, but not yet published last I heard. Global Engineering Documents [(714)261-1455] carried the drafts and will carry the standard, but may not be able to sell you anything right this minute. -- "The N in NFS stands for Not, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology or Need, or perhaps Nightmare"| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) (02/17/90)
> Reply-To: steve@aardvark.UUCP (Steve Willoughby) > > Can anyone tell me where I can get the latest copy of the ANSI C committee's > draft standard? While researching an article for the March issue of The Journal of C Language Translation, I called ANSI. Here's the details: ------------------------------------------------------------------- (ANSI anticipates copies being available by late March.) The Standard's official designation is ANSI~X3.159-1989. To obtain a copy, contact: American National Standards Institute Sales Department 1430 Broadway New York, NY 10018 (212) 642-4900 fax (212) 302-1286 At press time, the price of the standard had not yet been determined. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: they said that you will NOT be able to get copies of the final standard from Global Engineering Documents (where drafts were available), ONLY from ANSI. Rex ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rex Jaeschke | Journal of C Language Translation | C Users Journal (703) 860-0091 | 2051 Swans Neck Way | DEC PROFESSIONAL uunet!aussie!rex | Reston, Virginia 22091, USA | Programmers Journal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Convener of the Numerical C Extensions Group (NCEG) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcdaniel@amara.uucp (Tim McDaniel) (02/21/90)
In article <1990Feb16.173146.24403@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: The standard is now approved, but not yet published last I heard. Global Engineering Documents [(714)261-1455] carried the drafts and will carry the standard, but may not be able to sell you anything right this minute. I just called Globe, and they do have copies of the draft and Rationale for $70, with up to $10 for postage and handling. The toll-free number for their St. Louis office is 800 854 7179, BTW. I'm sure the final draft is very close to the approved standard, but are they identical? (Pardon me if my .signature is included twice.) -- Tim McDaniel Applied Dynamics International, Ann Arbor, MI Internet: mcdaniel%amara.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu UUCP: {uunet,sharkey}!amara!mcdaniel -- Tim McDaniel Applied Dynamics International, Ann Arbor, MI Internet: mcdaniel%amara.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu UUCP: {uunet,sharkey}!amara!mcdaniel
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (02/21/90)
In article <MCDANIEL.90Feb20134153@orenda.amara.uucp> mcdaniel@amara.uucp (Tim McDaniel) writes: >I'm sure the final draft is very close to the approved standard, but >are they identical? They better be!
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/22/90)
In article <MCDANIEL.90Feb20134153@orenda.amara.uucp> mcdaniel@amara.uucp (Tim McDaniel) writes: >I'm sure the final draft is very close to the approved standard, but >are they identical? I believe (although I couldn't swear to it in court) that the final draft is in fact exactly what went to ANSI for approval, so modulo typesetting differences, it is exactly what will be published. -- "The N in NFS stands for Not, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology or Need, or perhaps Nightmare"| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (02/23/90)
To the query: > > I'm sure the final draft is very close to the approved standard, but > > are they identical? Doug Gwyn responds in comp.std.c: > They better be! And indeed this is what everything I've seen about this question has said-- until yesterday! Yesterday I received a copy of the Report of the Redactor, dated February 2, 1990. It begins: # 1. Status # # As you know, the draft has been approved as a standard. The next step # is the ANSI editorial review, currently in progress as of the writing # of this report. Along with the changes requested by ANSI, we were # given license to correct any minor technical errors, as long as they # were completely editorial. This allowed us to fold in those points # mentioned in the ISO balloting (for DP9899) that were editorial and # the few editorial items I have accumulated over the past year. # # By the March meeting, the Standard should be well along in the public- # ation process, and should be available by mid to late March. There follows a list of 29 changes, all of which certainly seem to me to be indisputably editorial. Here are the first few: # 1.6, pages 2-3, lines 33-46 [sic] # Alphabetize the definitions. # # 1.6, page 3, line 22 # Change "Standard imposes" to "Standard explicitly imposes". (This # clarifies that "unspecified behavior" only covers those places for # which the Standard says such, not when nothing is stated.) # # 2.1.2.3, page 11, line 30 # Change "-32753" to "-32754". (An "off by one" bug in the example.) # # 2.2.1, page 11, line 30 # For clarity, even though header names are covered by the preprocessing # token case, change "literal," to "literal, a header name,". Perhaps those responsible for it can see their way to posting the entire list of changes, which runs to about 3 typeset pages. The report continues: # 3. ANSI editorial changes # # These are some of the changes from ANSI. Virtually all are stylistic # in nature. The editors were very surprised by the *lack* of problems # with the draft, and complimented our work. # # * The contents and the foreword had to be interchanged. # * The page numbers in the contents all should be right justified. # * The contents should have only "Contents" as its title. and so on through a total of 20 items of this type. This article is cross-posted to comp.lang.c, with followups directed back to comp.std.c. -- Mark Brader "It is impractical for the standard to attempt to SoftQuad Inc., Toronto constrain the behavior of code that does not obey utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com the constraints of the standard." -- Doug Gwyn All original text in this article is in the public domain.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (02/23/90)
>In article <MCDANIEL.90Feb20134153@orenda.amara.uucp> mcdaniel@amara.uucp (Tim McDaniel) writes: >>I'm sure the final draft is very close to the approved standard, but >>are they identical? Well, it seems I spoke too soon. Today I received a list of technical editorial changes that were made between the time that the majority of X3J11 last saw the proposed Standard and the time that it reached ANSI. (Some of these seemed aimed mainly at addressing ISO balloting comments.) There were also stylistic editorial changes to accommodate ANSI, but these were expected all along. A couple of the issues mentioned here before were addressed by the changes, most of which were reasonable but a couple of which I would take issue with as not being editorial and in fact changing from a desirable specification to an undesirable one. However, we can fight about this at the March X3J11 meeting..