Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsc!nevin1
From: nevin1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Mark Williams C
Message-ID: <1188@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 8 Jun 89 21:26:46 GMT
References: <24094@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <431fba10.14a1f@gtephx.UUCP> <8137@boring.cwi.nl> <8530@chinet.chi.il.us> <13475@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1000@twwells.uucp> <13522@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1011@twwells.uucp> <8465@june.cs.washington.edu> <10334@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNE
Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18

In article <10378@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
|Standard-conforming code is not expected to be rendered non-conforming
|in the next revision of the C Standard.  Any area where there was some
|sentiment that it might was flagged as an "obsolescent feature" in the
|current Standard, which should serve as sufficient warning to people
|to avoid relying on their long-term stability.  All other features
|should remain in C "forever".

Does this mean the ANS C v2 won't have any new keywords??  I doubt it.
Yet adding new keywords has a possibility of breaking existing code.
As a matter of fact, There is terribly little that can be added to C which
will not break existing pANS C v1 code (offhand, the only thing I can think
of is something on the order of allowing a comma after the last element
in declarator list).

Still, it will probably be 99% compatible.
-- 
NEVIN ":-)" LIBER  AT&T Bell Laboratories  nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM  (312) 979-4751