Latest standard after C99?

[Srinu]

Hi,

Is there any latest standard available after C99?

Srinivas

 

[Vivien MOREAU]

Is there any latest standard available after C99?

No.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

No.

That's at least debatable! C99 was modified by three technical
corrigenda so one could argue that the current standard is
C99+TC1+TC2+TC3. You can read it at:

http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf

The changes are relatively small and it's certainly not wrong to say C99
is latest standard.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I'm cross-posting this to comp.lang.c and comp.std.c.

There's the C1X Charter

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1250.pdf

Of course that's not a standard, but it's still quite interesting.

It's been suggested that the Committee intends to back out some C99
features and base the new C201X standard on C90. I see no hint of that
in N1250. There is the following statement:

With the C1X revision the Committee agreed that it might discuss
the sub-sectioning of the Standard. As the Standard grows in
size and complexity the Committee should not force the vendors
that supply the small machine market to implement features
that bloat the compiler and are not used in the environment
for which the implementation is targeted.

but that doesn't suggest completely dropping any C99 features.
Note that P.J. Plauger's proposal to make certain features (complex
arithmetic, threads, VLAs, and possibly atomics) optional is
consistent with the statement in the charter.

Another statement from the charter:

Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
commercial implementation should be considered.

is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
gcc?

The latest draft of the proposed C201x standard is
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1425.pdf>.
Note that this is *not* a standard; don't expect any implementations
to support any of the new features yet.

 

[lawrence.jones]

Another statement from the charter:

Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
commercial implementation should be considered.

is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
gcc?

Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
academic and experimental implementations.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
academic and experimental implementations.

yep.

I guess it would be like me trying to promote that people add variant typing
to C.
my implementation does this, technically, but I end up not using it so much
for its originally-intended purpose (providing dynamic type support in C),
rather, its use has typically become more limited, namely flagging off what
is a dynamically-tyoed reference.

other misc features:
128-bit wide pointers;
built-in support for quaternions and vector geometry;
....

these are all fairly well experimental feaures though, and few are as
heavily used as originally intended.

or such...

 

[Richard Bos]

Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
academic and experimental implementations.

Then I would suggest that it's the wrong word to use.

Richard

 

[spinoza1111]

I'm cross-posting this to comp.lang.c and comp.std.c.

"

Good answer to our friends in Asia! No patronizing BS. Keep up the
good work. My lecturing seems to be working dat old black magic even
on Kiki.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Then I would suggest that it's the wrong word to use.

Richard

Yes. Why not just use, say, "widely used"?

--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...