A lurker's take on C.L.C pedantry

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]>, Richard


I thought so... I have been around the Internet and USENET about 20
years and I seem to recall in years gone by there were a lot fewer
pedants around here.

[...]

There were also a lot fewer newsgroups. For example, there was no
comp.std.c when comp.lang.c (actually net.lang.c) was created.

That changes nothing.

 

[Chris H]

I thought you were on the ISO group. You mean you don't realize
than ANSI C is word for word identical with ISO 9899? There is no
such thing as a 'Unix version'.

I rest my case.
It is OK for CBF to be a pedant but not for me to be one if it disagrees
with him.

Also he missread what I wrote.

 

[Chris H]

Wot? Me bait CBF? Not a chance )))

"Chuck" is a poisonous, ignorant big head. Ignore him. But bait him
occasionally.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I thought you were on the ISO group. You mean you don't realize
than ANSI C is word for word identical with ISO 9899? There is no
such thing as a 'Unix version'.

I rest my case.
It is OK for CBF to be a pedant but not for me to be one if it disagrees
with him.[/QUOTE]

And there you have it. It should now be obvious to you (as it has been
to us for quite some time) that the "C is isomorphic to ISO C" and
"C is exactly what is in the standard; anything that claims to be C but
contains as much as 'one drop' (heh heh - historical reference there) of
non-ISO C is not C - as far as we are concerned, it is gobbledygook"
position just doesn't stand anymore. It's time has passed.

Most of the regs see this and, grudgingly, accept it. You can see it
in, for example, KT's recent posts. It is not explicit, but I've
certainly noticed KT no longer caring so much about "staying on topic".
If I had the limitless energy (not to mention, the life of luxury) that
my good friend Han has, I could spend the rest of my natural days
pointing out KT's topicality errors. But I digress...

Anyway, the point is that CBF is now the lone holdout. He's like what I
call "end stage evolution" - which is when a species is dying out it
starts mutating like crazy, trying to find a body configuration that can
survive - the last stages before total extinction. That's what CBF's
posts are these days.

 

[Rafael]

Chris H escreveu:

Isn't this al way off topic?
Take it to a social news group.... )))

What is that thread for, then?

 

[Guest]

My first point proved in spades... This NG  is for discussing ISO 9899
not some local US standard that was superseded about 19 years ago.

the 1989 ANSI C standard became an ISO standard. Essentially without
any change. And for the record, I'm not an American.

<snip>

 

[Chris H]

Chris H said:

In message <[email protected]>, Richard
[...]
I have seen the original "starter post" and it was for
discussion of all things C.

I thought so... I have been around the Internet and USENET about
20 years and I seem to recall in years gone by there were a lot
fewer pedants around here.
[...]

There were also a lot fewer newsgroups. For example, there was no
comp.std.c when comp.lang.c (actually net.lang.c) was created.

That changes nothing.

Huh? The creation of more newsgroups allows a finer gradation of
topicality within existing groups,

NO IT DOES NOT

New groups can have any finer or wider gradation as they please. It doe
NOT change the remit of the original group. If you want a group that has
a less flexible range than this one had go and start one. You do NOT
change this one.

I think Richard's comments clearly show that there are a group here who
ARE seeking to change the remit and range of this group to something
else.

. When there was no comp.std.c, comp.lang.c would have
been the most appropriate place for discussions about the Standard.
But after the creation of that group, it made sense to move such
discussions into that group.

Yes. People could discuss SPECIFICALLY The Standard in comp..std.c but
it DID NOT and DOES NOT change comp.lang.c

Similarly, once comp.unix.programmer
was created, it made sense to move POSIX discussions there.

Yes BUT it STILL DOES NOT CHANGE COMP.LANG.C

Once
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 was created, it made sense to
move Win32 API discussions there. And so on.

And it STILL DOES NOT CHANGE COMP.LANG.C and so on and so on.

There are plenty of system-specific groups around now, which leaves
comp.lang.c as the perfect place to discuss C language issues that
are independent of any particular system.

And ANYTHING ELSE UNDER ITS ORIGINAL REMIT.

If you want a group to discuss purely the use of what you define as
standard C then create one.

comp.lang.iso.c.use

and the 10 of you can be happy there but DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND
CAN NOT POST HERE WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH WHAT IS THE CHARTER OF THIS
GROUP

I am not as concerned as many here about system-specific aspects of
a question posted in this group; personally, I don't see it as a
big deal if people ask a question that is /primarily/ about C
rather than about something system-specific, even if it happens to
include some system-specific code. (That *doesn't* mean I'm in
favour of the abandonment of topicality. But I do think we could be
a little more relaxed about it.)

I agree. I think you and your little group should be more relaxed about
trying to change this group (or go and form your own.)

 

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]
s.com>, (e-mail address removed) writes

the 1989 ANSI C standard became an ISO standard.

I know but that is irrelevant.

Since then ISO has driven the procedure and in fact when C99 turned up
it was I think about a year before ANSI ratified it.

SO it is OK to Quite BSI-C or DIN-C then?

Essentially without
any change.

It is the "almost" I like...

 

[Keith Thompson]

In message <[email protected]
s.com>, (e-mail address removed) writes

I know but that is irrelevant.

Since then ISO has driven the procedure and in fact when C99 turned up
it was I think about a year before ANSI ratified it.

SO it is OK to Quite BSI-C or DIN-C then?


It is the "almost" I like...

There is a widely held opinion (one that I share with a significant
number of other contributors) that C99, C95, C89/C90, K&R C, and even
earlier versions (including pre-K&R C, B, and BCPL) are topical here
in comp.lang.c. Including C89/C90 is a partly a matter of
practicality, since C99-compliant implementations are still not as
widespread as some of us might like them to be, and C90 (with some
care to avoid C99 incompatibilities) is still the best bet for
portable code. Earlier versions are of historical interest; if
someone wants to discuss the history of the C language, this seems
like a good place for it.

As far as I can tell, few if any contributors seriously believe that
C90 should be excluded and we should only discuss C99. Since C90 is
very nearly a subset of C99, the distinction usually shows up in the
context of reminding people that a particular feature is C99-specific.

The 1989 ANSI standard and the 1990 ISO standard describe the same
language; the only changes were the addition of some front matter and
the renumbering of the sections. I'm not sure what point you're
trying to make about BSI and DIN; I presume they've simply adopted the
ISO C standard, and if not, that they have standard that also describe
the same language. (If that's not the case, I'd be interested in
learning more about that.)

 

[Chris H]

Chris H said:

Chris H said:

In message <[email protected]>, Keith Thompson
In message <[email protected]>, Richard
[...]
I have seen the original "starter post" and it was for
discussion of all things C.

I thought so... I have been around the Internet and USENET
about 20 years and I seem to recall in years gone by there
were a lot fewer pedants around here.
[...]

There were also a lot fewer newsgroups. For example, there was
no comp.std.c when comp.lang.c (actually net.lang.c) was
created.

That changes nothing.

Huh? The creation of more newsgroups allows a finer gradation of
topicality within existing groups,

NO IT DOES NOT

Yes, it does.

NO IT DOES NOT

What it does not do is *enforce* a finer gradation of
topicality within existing groups.

No one wants the remit changed or tightened except a few.

No, it doesn't - but it does /allow/ such a change, and such a
change makes a lot of sense.

It does NOT so leave it alone

I don't think it's possible to have a group with a less flexible
range than this one.

Well not as it was intended but it is compared to what you want to limit
it to

The only times I've /tried/ to change this one, it has been to
/widen/ the topicality, and I've always failed.

Really ?

That's a pretty reactionary viewpoint. Obviously it's one that
you're entitled to hold, but it seems rather inflexible.

Not at all it is factual

Well, it /did/ change comp.lang.c, because people seeking POSIX
expertise started posting in c.u.p, and POSIX experts started
spending more time there than here. Check out c.u.p and you'll find
lots of POSIX expertise there. Once upon a time, I suspect, that
expertise was mostly to be found here - but it's moved, and with
good cause, because better categorisation means better service.

True but it still does not stop them posting here if they want to.

I disagree that this group remains the perfect place to ask
system-specific questions.


Why bother? It exists right here.

As long as it is not limited to just that.

If you want such a group, go form it - or try to. It is unlikely to
succeed, however, because it would duplicate this group.

Not at all it has a much narrower remit than this group.

I don't tell you what you can and cannot post here. What I am
telling you is that people with system-specific questions can get
*better answers* in system-specific groups than they could get
here. I know this to be true because I've experienced it myself.

Not arguing with that.

What charter? This group doesn't /have/ a charter. The most it has
is a statement of intent that is well over twenty years old, long
before C was standardised and long before Usenet grew to its
current size. Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

EXACTLY BEFORE C WAS STANDARDISED therefore it is not about any
"standard" C but ANY C standard or not.

 

[CBFalconer]

the 1989 ANSI C standard became an ISO standard. Essentially
without any change. And for the record, I'm not an American.

True enough. However, the ANSI standard has been revised to the
ISO standard at each ISO revision.

 

[Mark Wooding]

[Lots of snipping.]

NO IT DOES NOT

Errr, is this the ten minute argument or the full half hour?

It does NOT so leave it alone

Given your unassailable logic, I see no reason to pursue the matter
further.

Ummm, where was that unassailable logic again?

-- [mdw]

 

[Keith Thompson]

True enough. However, the ANSI standard has been revised to the
ISO standard at each ISO revision.

But the term "ANSI C" is widely (and incorrectly) used to refer to the
language defined by the 1989 ANSI C standard. The reasons are
historical. In the late 1980s, the C community was eagerly awaiting
the release of the new standard -- and it was ANSI, not ISO, that was
producing it. Compilers added command-line options like "-ansi" to
handle the new standard, and there was a tool called "ansi2knr" that
attempted to automatically translate ANSI C code to K&R. The name
stuck, even after ISO became the primary sponsor.

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

Errr, is this the ten minute argument or the full half hour?

Beat me to it.

"Look, this isn't an argument!"
"Yes it is."
"It's just contradiction!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."
"Yes, but that's not just saying, 'No it isn't'."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't!"

-Beej

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Right - and the Standard they produced was the ANSI C Standard,
not the ISO C Standard. ISO adopted ANSI C, but did not thereby
expunge it from existence. If people wish to refer to the
language defined by the Standard produced by ANSI in 1989, what
term should they use other than ANSI C?

Try X3.???-1988. Don't know what the '?'s should be. Maybe 89.

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

Nevertheless, I will take this opportunity to point out again that I
did at least attempt to provide a rationale for my viewpoint, rather
than simply contradict Chris with "tis tisn't tis tisn't".

Yeah, I wasn't really making commentary (much); I was just reminded of
it, is all.

-Beej

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson said:


I disagree that such usage is incorrect. Obsolete? Maybe.
Ill-advised? Perhaps. But incorrect? No. K&R certainly used the
term that way, and with every justification.

Of course they did -- in 1988, when it was perfectly accurate (or,
rather, was about to be).

The fact that another,
remarkably similar, standard exists is important, but it does not
somehow undo the standardisation work that ANSI undertook in the
1980s. Nor does it render the 1989 ANSI C Standard non-existent,
any more than the 2000 ANSI C Standard rendered C99 non-existent.

Ah, but the American National Standards Institute itself has adopted
ISO C99 as its official standard.

Referring to C89 simply as "ANSI C" is at least incomplete, and
ignores later history and the wishes of the ANSI organization itself.

[...]

Right - and the Standard they produced was the ANSI C Standard, not
the ISO C Standard. ISO adopted ANSI C, but did not thereby expunge
it from existence. If people wish to refer to the language defined
by the Standard produced by ANSI in 1989, what term should they use
other than ANSI C?

C89, of course. Or ANSI C89. Or even ISO C90, since it's the same
language.

 

[Guest]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Try X3.???-1988.  Don't know what the '?'s should be.  Maybe 89.

ANSI X3.159-1989

 

[Chris H]

True enough. However, the ANSI standard has been revised to the
ISO standard at each ISO revision.

So has the BSI, DIN etc

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson said:

Right - or "ANSI C" for short.

No. Or, rather, I disagree. Since ANSI (as you know) has adopted ISO
C99 as its official C standard, referring to C89 simply as "ANSI C"
is, pedantically speaking, incorrect.

Modulo section numbers.

Section numbers are part of the standard documents, not part of the
language they describe. The ANSI C89 document and the ISO C90
document describe, as far as I know, exactly the same language.