Can I buy C99 with TC1 and TC2 already taken effect in it?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Romeo Colacitti, Feb 8, 2005.

  1. Hello C-goers,

    Been using last C99 draft for a while now and want to purchase actual
    C99 standard from ANSI. I know there are two technical corrigendum
    documents standardized too, which are freely available. My question
    is, if I buy the C99 standard right now, will the corrections from TC1
    and TC2 already have been taken place on the document?

    If not, does everyone find it difficult playing around with 3 documents
    to get answers?
     
    Romeo Colacitti, Feb 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Romeo Colacitti

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    Romeo Colacitti <> writes
    >Hello C-goers,
    >
    >Been using last C99 draft for a while now and want to purchase actual
    >C99 standard from ANSI. I know there are two technical corrigendum
    >documents standardized too, which are freely available. My question
    >is, if I buy the C99 standard right now, will the corrections from TC1
    >and TC2 already have been taken place on the document?


    No.

    >
    >If not, does everyone find it difficult playing around with 3 documents
    >to get answers?


    Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's rolled
    into it.

    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Hills wrote:
    >
    >
    > Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
    > rolled into it [C99 standard document].
    >


    What is C05?
     
    Romeo Colacitti, Feb 9, 2005
    #3
  4. Romeo Colacitti

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Romeo
    Colacitti <> writes
    >Chris Hills wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
    >> rolled into it [C99 standard document].
    >>

    >
    >What is C05?
    >

    The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    come out latter this year.

    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 9, 2005
    #4
  5. Romeo Colacitti

    Randy Howard Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Hello C-goers,
    >
    > Been using last C99 draft for a while now and want to purchase actual
    > C99 standard from ANSI. I know there are two technical corrigendum
    > documents standardized too, which are freely available. My question
    > is, if I buy the C99 standard right now, will the corrections from TC1
    > and TC2 already have been taken place on the document?


    You can get it in book form with TC1 and the Rationale. (Wiley)

    > If not, does everyone find it difficult playing around with 3 documents
    > to get answers?


    Since it is very unlikely you have a C99 compiler anyway, it probably
    isn't that big of a deal.

    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    "Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
    to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
     
    Randy Howard, Feb 9, 2005
    #5
  6. Romeo Colacitti

    Randy Howard Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > In article <>, Romeo
    > Colacitti <> writes
    > >Chris Hills wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
    > >> rolled into it [C99 standard document].
    > >>

    > >
    > >What is C05?
    > >

    > The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    > come out latter this year.


    With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.

    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    "Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
    to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
     
    Randy Howard, Feb 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Romeo Colacitti

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Randy Howard
    <> writes
    >In article <>, says...
    >> In article <>, Romeo
    >> Colacitti <> writes
    >> >Chris Hills wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
    >> >> rolled into it [C99 standard document].
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >What is C05?
    >> >

    >> The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    >> come out latter this year.

    >
    >With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.
    >

    I doubt it.

    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 9, 2005
    #7
  8. Romeo Colacitti

    Randy Howard Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > In article <>, Randy Howard
    > <> writes
    > >> The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    > >> come out latter this year.

    > >
    > >With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.
    > >

    > I doubt it.


    Me too.

    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    "Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
    to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
     
    Randy Howard, Feb 9, 2005
    #8
  9. On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:53:27 +0000, Chris Hills
    <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Randy Howard
    > <> writes
    >>In article <>, says...
    >>> In article <>, Romeo
    >>> Colacitti <> writes
    >>> >Chris Hills wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
    >>> >> rolled into it [C99 standard document].
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> >What is C05?
    >>> >
    >>> The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    >>> come out latter this year.

    >>
    >>With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.
    >>

    > I doubt it.


    Surely it's the conforming compilers which cause the rapture? O
    frabjous day, calloo, callay, and all that...

    Chris C
     
    Chris Croughton, Feb 9, 2005
    #9
  10. Chris Hills wrote:
    > In article <>,

    Romeo
    > Colacitti <> writes
    > >Chris Hills wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
    > >> rolled into it [C99 standard document].
    > >>

    > >
    > >What is C05?
    > >

    > The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    > come out latter this year.
    >


    Even after the new standard comes out, we're likely to see TCs
    associated with it appear after that and (based on the C99) they won't
    be rolled into the C05 document, which will continue to frustrate me.
     
    Romeo Colacitti, Feb 9, 2005
    #10
  11. Romeo Colacitti

    Luke Wu Guest

    Chris Hills wrote:

    > >

    > The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    > come out latter this year.
    >


    Hmmm. There is already enough fragmentation as there is with many
    compilers conforming to C89 only, other conforming to C89 plus some
    ideas from C99 and a few that claim full C99 compatiblity.

    Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
    clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
    adopted by most compilers.

    So we're going to have 3 C standards in use in a few months, great!
     
    Luke Wu, Feb 10, 2005
    #11
  12. Romeo Colacitti

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Luke
    Wu <> writes
    >
    >Chris Hills wrote:
    >
    >> >

    >> The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
    >> come out latter this year.
    >>

    >
    >Hmmm. There is already enough fragmentation as there is with many
    >compilers conforming to C89 only, other conforming to C89


    You mean ISO 9899:1990?... C90

    > plus some
    >ideas from C99 and a few that claim full C99 compatiblity.


    >
    >Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
    >clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
    >adopted by most compilers.
    >
    >So we're going to have 3 C standards in use in a few months, great!


    No. There will be one standard. ISO 9899:2005. (which is 9899:1999 +
    TC1 and TC2)

    Though you are correct that 95% of the worlds compilers adhere to C90 +
    the amendments (often informally refereed to as C95) with a few small
    parts of C99 such as // for comments.

    The embedded world will continue with C95ish I think. So you will have
    two strands the embedded cross compilers on one tact and the "desktop"
    compilers on the other. As people tend not to use both most people will
    still only have one standard to contend with.


    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Chris Hills wrote:

    >
    > Though you are correct that 95% of the worlds compilers adhere to C90

    +
    > the amendments (often informally refereed to as C95) with a few

    small
    > parts of C99 such as // for comments.
    >


    Does anyone know where I can find a a C95ish document?
     
    Romeo Colacitti, Feb 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Romeo Colacitti

    Guest

    Luke Wu <> wrote:
    >
    > Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
    > clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
    > adopted by most compilers.


    If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
    (and perhaps some small editorial changes).

    -Larry Jones

    I wonder what's on TV now. -- Calvin
     
    , Feb 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Romeo Colacitti

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    writes
    >Luke Wu <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
    >> clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
    >> adopted by most compilers.

    >
    >If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
    >(and perhaps some small editorial changes).


    That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
    gets rolled into a new base document.

    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 12, 2005
    #15
  16. Chris Hills <> writes:
    > In article <>,
    > writes
    >>Luke Wu <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
    >>> clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
    >>> adopted by most compilers.

    >>
    >>If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
    >>(and perhaps some small editorial changes).

    >
    > That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
    > gets rolled into a new base document.


    You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
    standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
    correct.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Feb 12, 2005
    #16
  17. Romeo Colacitti

    infobahn Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:
    >
    > Chris Hills <> writes:
    > >
    > > That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
    > > gets rolled into a new base document.

    >
    > You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
    > standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
    > correct.


    Maybe not, but it /is/ accurate. It's about as accurate as saying that
    "Winnie the Pooh" is nothing more than "Hamlet" with a couple of edits
    (one rather large delete, and one rather large insert).
     
    infobahn, Feb 13, 2005
    #17
  18. On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:34:53 +0000 (UTC), infobahn
    <> wrote:

    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>
    >> Chris Hills <> writes:
    >> >
    >> > That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
    >> > gets rolled into a new base document.

    >>
    >> You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
    >> standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
    >> correct.

    >
    > Maybe not, but it /is/ accurate. It's about as accurate as saying that
    > "Winnie the Pooh" is nothing more than "Hamlet" with a couple of edits
    > (one rather large delete, and one rather large insert).


    And it's even kept the character name, albeit as a sidekick and with a
    minor change ('pig' instead of 'ham'). But then I've heard the Denmark
    play referred to as "The Little Pig" by Bill Wagglestick...

    "What state is the code in?"
    "Denmark! As in the first line of 'Hamlet'..."

    Chris C
     
    Chris Croughton, Feb 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Romeo Colacitti

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
    > writes
    >Chris Hills <> writes:
    >> In article <>,
    >> writes
    >>>Luke Wu <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
    >>>> clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
    >>>> adopted by most compilers.
    >>>
    >>>If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
    >>>(and perhaps some small editorial changes).

    >>
    >> That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
    >> gets rolled into a new base document.

    >
    >You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
    >standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
    >correct.


    I thnin you are correct. There was more that just C90+ the bits in C99.
    there would have been in C05 other than the TC2 was published before the
    suggestion was put forward to do C05.



    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Romeo Colacitti

    Guest

    Chris Hills <> wrote:
    >
    > That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
    > gets rolled into a new base document.


    That is completely wrong. C99 was a major revision of the C90 standard
    that required significant development effort and included much new
    material not from any previous amendment or corridenum. C05 (if there
    is one) will just be a reprinting of C99 incorporating the changes from
    TC1 and TC2 (and, perhaps, a few small editorial changes).

    -Larry Jones

    I just can't identify with that kind of work ethic. -- Calvin
     
    , Feb 13, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. littlte woman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    293
    littlte woman
    Aug 25, 2006
  2. teun blsy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    503
    teun blsy
    Aug 25, 2006
  3. teun blsy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    321
    teun blsy
    Aug 27, 2006
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,681
    Chris Torek
    Feb 20, 2006
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    600
    Keith Thompson
    Mar 31, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page