Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: size_t vs long. Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 10:09:10 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 35 Message-ID: <861qpyddfd.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <5a71fdad-b7d6-4b4a-a3ee-c5a9beb75d28n@googlegroups.com> <20221117011851.690@kylheku.com> <02eee7cc-6d03-420f-adf6-d7b87592fe38n@googlegroups.com> <2b19488a-2675-4dfd-9de8-11720bb222a7n@googlegroups.com> <86edtzc8fc.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3a600a3efa6b1d635770a4955b3f9787"; logging-data="3443855"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/SfRhzsJwvuRXyWTgsFOZkYns5Y/3hgc=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Hu12mMWgdpIa+WUoE7zt0u4cOsY= sha1:bpJhXE0SlSnhiMPga4vnWpMR/H0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:168286 Richard Damon writes: > On 11/19/22 9:42 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> James Kuyper writes: >> >>> C89 was a US standard. It got taken over by ISO, which released >>> almost exactly the same text as C90. They added 3 sections at the >>> beginning of the standard to meet ISO requirements, which resulted >>> in every section number after that being increased by 3 (which >>> means every single cross-reference had to be updated, too), but it >>> was otherwise almost identical. [...] >> >> For the most part the ISO (C90) standard uses exactly the same >> wording that was used in the ANSI (C89) standard (ignoring >> differences in numbering, like you say). In places though there >> are some non-trivial changes. > > My understanding was that, execpt for the early "boiler-plate" section > added near the beginning which causes the numbering difference, the > rest of the content was adopted verbatim. My observation is this. I have a copy of ansi.c.txt, which is supposed to be a text-based copy of the ANSI C standard (and presumably after the ANSI C standard was ratified). Perusing that document from time to time, and occasionally going back and forth between that and the first ISO C document, I happened to see passages in places that were different between the ANSI document and the ISO document. Indeed most of the text in the two documents is word-for-word identical, which made the few instances where there were discrepancies stand out rather vividly. Unfortunately I remember the fact of there being differences but not where they are specifically. But I am quite sure that I observed some differences in the wordings of the two documents.