Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: standards development process Message-ID: <7744@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: 24 Apr 88 16:02:02 GMT References: <10811@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 15 In article <10811@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >At this point ANSI-C is so different than the C I know ... How so? It includes more than you are accustomed to, undoubtedly (e.g. prototypes and type qualifiers), but it is substantially the same language. Most existing more-or-less portable C code should continue to work under an ANSI C implementation with no change. I expect that C compiler vendors will make every effort to supply the same non-ANSI C extensions that their customers are already using; for example, although is the new form for variadic argument handling macros, most current implementations of will continue to be provided as extensions to the ANSI C environment. Experiments wherein existing UNIX PCC-developed code has been recompiled in an ANSI C environment have shown that most of it works no worse than before. Sounds like the same language to me.