Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: converting "classic c" to "ansi c"
Message-ID: <9815@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 8 Mar 89 02:42:37 GMT
References: <173@ziggy.UUCP> <11956@haddock.ima.isc.com> <2214@buengc.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 29

In article <2214@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>Speaking of which, (and I'm a bit dismayed that I hadn't thought to ask
>sooner) when is ANSI going to finalize the standard?

It is expected that they will more or less automatically ratify it after
X3 approves the pANS.  X3 should have just completed balloting on the
pANS that X3J11 sent them; I don't yet know the outcome of the balloting.
(It will be really annoying if some X3 member objected at this stage,
given all the time and effort that went into resolving objections during
the past couple of years.)

If the pANS has passed X3, ANSI should get around to approving it and
publishing the standard within a few months.

>... I'd like to know when to start trusting the available standardlets
>(i.e., when is it too late for them to be changed easily?).

It's already too late for the pANS to be changed easily.
If for some reason a change is required at this stage, it will be a
major hassle.  Many X3J11 committee members are winding down their
involvement.

>What [is] ... the likely date that the thing will be obsolete?

Not for several years, and even then if there is a revised standard
it is likely to be upward compatible with this one (i.e. existing
conforming applications would continue to be supported, and extensions
to the language and library may be allowed or required beyond the
initial standard).