Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:06:03 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <op.xe2ukdwh6zenlw@localhost>
References: <85ca46a5-03d8-41ad-ab7e-8e5c3b781e48@googlegroups.com> <eqednXF-VdNysc_OnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@supernews.com> <op.xej213eg6zenlw@localhost> <88c99e6b-9fb4-45fb-a724-eb03a673ceec@googlegroups.com> <53547407$0$25056$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> <lj3ndt$v3o$1@dont-email.me> <op.xeozguvu6zenlw@localhost> <lj4ggt$2kl$1@dont-email.me> <op.xepi33sv6zenlw@localhost> <lj6tdt$gji$1@dont-email.me> <op.xeqt1bj06zenlw@localhost> <lj7lsr$7ng$1@dont-email.me> <op.xeynis146zenlw@localhost> <ljimdf$8po$1@dont-email.me> <op.xe0f98d76zenlw@localhost> <e3bc2570-d2ec-4157-b421-5683558798aa@googlegroups.com> <op.xe0s8gf96zenlw@localhost> <e191e402-4272-49f2-ad7e-28581357fb8d@googlegroups.com> <ljlicq$a35$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29958

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:43:07 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote:

> National standards bodies are reluctant to re-engineer global standards,
> and ANSI quite clearly states that it does not develop standards; it
> accredits other bodies and adopts their standards. An ISO standard is
> generally adopted as an ANSI standard. ANSI is on ISO;
> [link]
>
> ANSI standards are expensive, but are released for certain purposes
> without cost; for instance, the INCITS document
> [link] contains the ANS
> standard. ECMA (another standards body) publishes their standards for
> free; the equivalent (and AFAIK identical) to the ASCII standard is
> [link]

ECMA? ...
It's good that they release standards but the quality is debatable.

Microsoft wrote a publicly available standard for their FAT12/FAT16.
ECMA did too, using Microsoft's own standard.  ECMA's standard is
completely different.  They're nothing alike.  They made errors too.

I wanted to compare if INCITTS changed anything in the ANSI standard,
but I'd need an original ANSI to do so.  So, I was going to ask if
you had an INCITS link to C89.  I had and still have some doubts as
to the authenticity and/or accuracy.  Some of the things I remember
reading and seeing years ago weren't present.  But, I decided to let
it pass.  It might've been in one of the other standards.


Rod Pemberton