Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Signed/Unisgned chars (Was: What's a C expert?)
Message-ID: <10464@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 28 Jun 89 04:08:33 GMT
References: <12214@well.UUCP> <6057@microsoft.UUCP> <2379@uwovax.uwo.ca> <18291@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <18291@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>(Personally, I prefer the terms `Classic C' and `New C', a la the change
>to Coca-Cola.)

Unfortunately, "Classic C" was fuzzily defined; it seemed to
mean different things to different implementors, which is one
reason that X3J11 spent several years refining the definition.

Many people involved with C standardization are using the term
"Standard C" for the language+library specified by X3J11.  That
takes into account the possibility of an ISO standard as well
as an ANSI standard, also FIPS etc.  Every effort is being made
to prevent a multiplicity of differing C standards.  At the
Seattle meeting, ISO WG14 agreed to propose the same standard
as X3J11; thus so far the term "Standard C" is unambiguous.
Even though it hasn't yet made it through any official approval
cycle, the Standard is stable and well known, so it can serve
perfectly well as a practical Standard while the bureaucracy
moves ponderously forward.