Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: To ANSI or not to ANSI Message-ID: <14078@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 10 Oct 90 17:42:33 GMT References: <26738@shamash.cdc.com> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 13 In article <26738@shamash.cdc.com> paul@u02.svl.cdc.com (Paul Kohlmiller) writes: >I don't know when but I think we know how we will know that it is time. It >will be after NIST approves a validation suite and then the phrase ANSI- >conforming might mean something. "NIST's validation suite conforming" is not at all guaranteed to mean "ANSI standard conforming", and in fact two of the three major bidders for the suite dropped out, largely due to concerns over the way NIST was going about the acquisition. They essentially were insisting on a suite being contributed free, plus NIST being allowed to make any changes they felt like, which given their record with POSIX would very likely mean that they would add requirements counter to the intent of the ANSI standard.