lastest C standard version

M

Matt

I want to know what is the latest C standard version? Is it C99? There
are many terms I have heard, including C98, C99, C9X. Or should we
call ANSI/ISO C?

Please advise. Thanks!!
 
E

Emmanuel Delahaye

Matt a formulé la demande :
I want to know what is the latest C standard version? Is it C99? There
are many terms I have heard, including C98, C99, C9X. Or should we
call ANSI/ISO C?

Please advise. Thanks!!

It's 'C99'. The full name is 'ISO/IEC 9899:1999'
 
D

Dan Pop

In said:
Matt a formulé la demande :

It's 'C99'. The full name is 'ISO/IEC 9899:1999'

It's actually C99 with TC1 corrections applied, so the full name should
be something like ISO/IEC 9899:1999 + ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001
(the second part being the ref no of TC1).

The version published by John Wiley & Sons includes TC1, but there is
no way to merge the two PDFs you can get from ISO or ANSI.

Dan
 
L

lawrence.jones

Dan Pop said:
The version published by John Wiley & Sons includes TC1, but there is
no way to merge the two PDFs you can get from ISO or ANSI.

FYI, TC2 has been submitted for approval and we're going to do our best
to convince the powers that be to let us "print" a new edition of the
Standard for it rather than just publishing a separate TC document.

-Larry Jones

From now on, I'm devoting myself to the cultivation of
interpersonal relationships. -- Calvin
 
D

Dan Pop

In said:
FYI, TC2 has been submitted for approval and we're going to do our best
to convince the powers that be to let us "print" a new edition of the
Standard for it rather than just publishing a separate TC document.

What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
document or something in-between?

Dan
 
M

Mabden

Dan Pop said:
What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
document or something in-between?

Oh... no... Dan is going to get a NEW standards document...?
God help us all!
 
A

Al Grant

It's actually C99 with TC1 corrections applied, so the full name should
be something like ISO/IEC 9899:1999 + ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001
(the second part being the ref no of TC1).

The version published by John Wiley & Sons includes TC1, but there is
no way to merge the two PDFs you can get from ISO or ANSI.

The version published by Wiley that we have is BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999,
i.e. the BSI adoption. The book is published and printed in the UK.
Are there different versions of the book in other territories?
 
D

Dan Pop

In said:
The version published by Wiley that we have is BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999,
i.e. the BSI adoption. The book is published and printed in the UK.
Are there different versions of the book in other territories?

Probably not, but the published version does include TC1. From
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470845732.html

The C Standard: Incorporating Technical Corrigendum 1
British Standards Institute
ISBN: 0-470-84573-2
Hardcover
558 pages
September 2003
US $65.00

The page count is probably wrong, because it doesn't include the about
200 pages of the Rationale.

Dan
 
T

Thomas L.

FYI, TC2 has been submitted for approval and we're going to do our best
to convince the powers that be to let us "print" a new edition of the
Standard for it rather than just publishing a separate TC document.

-Larry Jones

From now on, I'm devoting myself to the cultivation of
interpersonal relationships. -- Calvin

BTW, is there a "steering commitee" or a group somewhere in the world
interested in some sort of "requested features" or "suggestions" for
the C language? How does this language evolves and who are the ideas'
initiators. Is it WG14?
 
L

lawrence.jones

In comp.std.c Dan Pop said:
What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
document or something in-between?

I honestly don't know. Given that full price for the PDF is only $18,
it hardly makes much difference in that case.

-Larry Jones

I don't need to do a better job. I need better P.R. on the job I DO.
-- Calvin
 
L

lawrence.jones

In comp.lang.c Thomas L. said:
BTW, is there a "steering commitee" or a group somewhere in the world
interested in some sort of "requested features" or "suggestions" for
the C language? How does this language evolves and who are the ideas'
initiators. Is it WG14?

Yes, although we're usually not particularly interested in requested
features or suggestions without a detailed and carefully thought out
proposal, preferably with a "champion" who's willing to attend committee
meetings, present the proposal, solicit feedback, etc. We're also not
particularly interested in suggestions unless we're actively working on
revising the standard, which we're not at the moment.

-Larry Jones

I hate being good. -- Calvin
 
L

lawrence.jones

Al Grant said:
The version published by Wiley that we have is BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999,
i.e. the BSI adoption. The book is published and printed in the UK.
Are there different versions of the book in other territories?

Not so far as I know. The book contains ISO/IEC 9899:1999 as modified
by the corrections in ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001. Whether that really
corresponds to BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999 or not I cannot say -- if they
really have applied the corrections, they probably should have changed
the date as well.

-Larry Jones

Good gravy, whose side are you on?! -- Calvin
 
D

Douglas A. Gwyn

Yes, although we're usually not particularly interested in requested
features or suggestions without a detailed and carefully thought out
proposal, preferably with a "champion" who's willing to attend committee
meetings, present the proposal, solicit feedback, etc. We're also not
particularly interested in suggestions unless we're actively working on
revising the standard, which we're not at the moment.

Two more points. First, be sure your suggestion is
for something that is significantly useful. There
was a long list of features considered but not
adopted for the 1989 C standard, and it would be
wise to review those before bringing up the same
old proposals all over again. Your rationale for
the inclusion of a new feature should include one
or more of: (a) it provides something that is
needed from time to time which is impractical to
code in Standard C as it exists; (b) it provides a
standard specification for some portable function
that many programmers have independently reinvented;
(c) it facilitates some common operation which is
otherwise tedious to code; (d) it permits more
extensive optimization of generated code; (e) it
provides better support for some other important
standard; (f) it permits better compile-time checks.

Second, it helps us evaluate the ramifications of
making a change if there is at least one existing
implementation with a significant number of users.
You might add the feature to LCC or GCC, perhaps.
 
T

Thomas L.

Yes, although we're usually not particularly interested in requested
features or suggestions without a detailed and carefully thought out
proposal, preferably with a "champion" who's willing to attend committee
meetings, present the proposal, solicit feedback, etc. We're also not
particularly interested in suggestions unless we're actively working on
revising the standard, which we're not at the moment.

-Larry Jones

I hate being good. -- Calvin

Allright,
I can imagine there has been some incredible amount of non-carefully
thought suggestions for C and I am not prepared to go through all the
historical of C standards to find a carefully-thought formulation.

BTW, Larry, you say "We"... who are "we"?

Something on the side:
I am in the scientific programming community and i have to deal with a
lot of fortran (or at least people wondering why don't I use fortran).
The fortran language has known quite a lot of these new standards:
f90, f95, now f2003... Do you have an idea (apart from "fortran was
crap right at the beggining so they have to redo everything") why the
development cycle of C and fortran seems so different?

That's no criticism, I am just wondering if somebody has a clue?
Thomas
 
M

Mabden

Douglas A. Gwyn said:
Two more points. First, be sure your suggestion is
for something that is significantly useful.

I believe the dwim() function would be a useful addition to the C standard
language.
This function would add "Do What I Mean" functionality, which is
occasionally missing from the C standard library.
 
C

Charles Sanders

Thomas L. said:
The fortran language has known quite a lot of these new standards:
f90, f95, now f2003... Do you have an idea (apart from "fortran was
crap right at the beggining so they have to redo everything") why the
development cycle of C and fortran seems so different?

That's no criticism, I am just wondering if somebody has a clue?
Thomas

Are they that different ?

Fortran went through several non-standard versions in the 1950's
and early 1960's. The standards I know about are, if memory
serves me correctly

1966
1977 - 11 years, significant changes
1990 - 13 years, major changes
1995 - 5 years, but fairly minor tweaks
2003 - 8 years, 13 since last major change

While for C, I think it was (I am sure someone will correct my
errors)

1989
1995 - 6 years, but fairly minor tweaks
1999 - 4 years, 10 since last major change

so the cycle does not seem that different to me. If anything the
Fortran standard seems to be changing more slowly.

Charles


Charles
 
I

Irrwahn Grausewitz

Not so far as I know. The book contains ISO/IEC 9899:1999 as modified
by the corrections in ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001. Whether that really
corresponds to BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999 or not I cannot say -- if they
really have applied the corrections, they probably should have changed
the date as well.

Actually, they changed it to "ISO/IEC 9899:TC1". Alas, I wasn't aware
of that fact until someone in c.s.c pointed it out some time ago.
It's not /that/ easy to spot the one and only place it's mentioned in
the whole book, and finding it is left as an exercise to the reader.
:)

Regards
 
T

those who know me have no need of my name

[fu-t set]

in comp.lang.c i read:
I honestly don't know. Given that full price for the PDF is only $18,
it hardly makes much difference in that case.

this is not the case everywhere, e.g., the iso (now) sells the pdf for the
same price as the printed (chf 340).
 
F

Francois Grieu

T

Thomas L.

I found on the web (don't remember where...) a pdf document whose
header (on each of the 500+ pages) says |left: (c)ISO/IEC right:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)|
what is this document and is it an illegal copy of the final version
of the last standard? Or the (E) means a prior-to-release version?
In that case, what is the most up-to-date document : the WG14 C99
Rationale or the pdf I found?
Thanks for help

Thomas
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,994
Messages
2,570,223
Members
46,812
Latest member
GracielaWa

Latest Threads

Top