Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Looking for source for obtaining latest draft standard Message-ID: <12213@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 22 Feb 90 22:53:14 GMT References: <147@aardvark.UUCP> <1990Feb16.173146.24403@utzoo.uucp> <1990Feb21.164838.9858@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 16 >In article mcdaniel@amara.uucp (Tim McDaniel) writes: >>I'm sure the final draft is very close to the approved standard, but >>are they identical? Well, it seems I spoke too soon. Today I received a list of technical editorial changes that were made between the time that the majority of X3J11 last saw the proposed Standard and the time that it reached ANSI. (Some of these seemed aimed mainly at addressing ISO balloting comments.) There were also stylistic editorial changes to accommodate ANSI, but these were expected all along. A couple of the issues mentioned here before were addressed by the changes, most of which were reasonable but a couple of which I would take issue with as not being editorial and in fact changing from a desirable specification to an undesirable one. However, we can fight about this at the March X3J11 meeting..