Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: What is a byte
Message-ID: <6372@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 30-Aug-87 19:29:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6372
Posted: Sun Aug 30 19:29:41 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Aug-87 03:45:25 EDT
References: <218@astra.necisa.oz> <142700010@tiger.UUCP> <2792@phri.UUCP> <6252@brl-smoke.ARPA> <866@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 19
Xref: utgpu comp.lang.c:3889 comp.std.internat:189

In article <866@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
>Why do we all assume that C must be twisted and bent to fit the
>international environment?

First, I am not proposing that C be "bent and twisted".  I think it is
possible to cleanly address the needs of the international programming
community.  (I think my proposal for this was much cleaner than the one
that is likely to be adopted, but at least you can ignore the latter if
you're sure that you don't need to worry about such matters.)

Second, if you rephrase the question "Why do we have to consider the
international community?", the answer is:  Because ISO or JIS will come
up with something for THEIR version of the C standard if we don't come
up with it for OURS.  Having different standards, particularly if one
of them is likely to be unappealing to us, is a situation to be avoided.

You should also observe that most large companies you think of as U.S.-
based actually have a significant percentage of their market overseas.
They certainly feel the need for international standards.