Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #386203

Re: Good hash for pointers

Show key headers only | View raw

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 00:56:40 -0700
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why you say that.  C was an ANSI standard before it
>>> was an ISO standard.  Or is it that you think that the language
>>> Malcolm is intent on using does not conform to C90/C89/ANSI C?
>>
>> All I wanted to point by this comment is that ANSI recognizes ISO/IEC
>> 9899:2018 as their current C Standard and probably will recognize the
>> next ISO C Standard pretty soon.  For that reason I think that names like
>> C89 or C90 are preferable (to ANSI C) when we want to refer to this
>> particular variant of the language.
>
> I see.  So it isn't that you think "ANSI C" is wrong, just
> that it might be misleading or that C89 or C90 is preferable.
> Personally I would be surprised if someone used "ANSI C" to
> mean anything other than C89/C90, but certainly other people
> could have a different reaction.

The term "ANSI C" almost universally refers to C89/C90.  But someone
not familiar with the term might expect it to mean "the C standard
endorsed by ANSI", which is currently C17.

The term "ANSI C" started out as a way to refer to the newly
standardized language, distinguishing it from pre-standard versions
like the one documented in K&R1.

I don't necessarily complain when someone uses the phrase "ANSI C"
to mean C89/C90, but I try to avoid it myself in favor of "C89" or
"C90".

Hmm.  It occurs to me that "K&R C", which usually refers to the
language defined in K&R1, is also potentially ambiguous.  I'm not
going to worry about it too much.  (One C compiler uses a "-ansic"
command-line option to cause it to attempt to conform to C99.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-17 00:56 -0700
  Re: Good hash for pointers Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-17 12:39 +0300
    Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-18 10:47 -0700
      Re: Good hash for pointers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 15:17 -0700
        Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-18 16:17 -0700
      Re: Good hash for pointers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-18 19:23 -0400
        Re: Good hash for pointers Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 17:17 -0700
        Re: Good hash for pointers Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-23 11:23 -0700

csiph-web