Alf said:
* Rolf Magnus:
Yes, that's correct (the first literally in an impractical formalistic
narrow interpretation,
It's how the C99 standard officially defines it. And it also results from
the fact that you can't obtain C89, neither from ANSI, nor from ISO. You
just need to happen to know someone who has an old printed copy (or have
one on your own) to be able to read it. I'd say that's pretty impractical,
too. I know that there are still lots of compilers that have broken or no
C99 support, even though it has been there for almost 10 years, and that
there are also lots of C programmers that ignore C99 (maybe for just that
reason, or maybe because they just don't care at all).
The current C++ standard was adopted in 1998, before C99. ;-)
That doesn't change the fact that it's broken now. In the period from 1998
to 1999, it was ok. If you don't have access to an old C90 document, there
is no way to get a full definition of ISO C++. IMHO, that's not an
acceptable state for an international standard.
The 2003 version is not new standard but Technical Corrigendum 1 (TC1).
It could not change the reference to the C standard.
It's a reference to something that's not available, so it's still broken. It
could have had an addenum that contained the relevant parts of C90.