Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Good hash for pointers
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:23:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <v4t4tq$1j49k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2n88p$1nlcc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2qm8m$2el55$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <v2qnue$2evlu$1@dont-email.me> <v2r9br$2hva2$1@dont-email.me>
 <86fru6gsqr.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v2sudq$2trh1$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <8634q5hjsp.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v2vmhr$3ffjk$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <86le3wfsmd.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v2voe7$3fr50$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <86ed9ofq14.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240605005916.00001b33@yahoo.com>
 <86a5jzmle1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240605195905.00002484@yahoo.com>
 <86y17ilm4k.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240606110009.00001096@yahoo.com>
 <86zfrkj93b.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240617123926.00006a12@yahoo.com>
 <86ed8ujg7j.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 01:23:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="977861046102a5888cc0f0c87642c473";
	logging-data="1675572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/AY/ZDT6peWi6MNXmToD7jujFR5PCiyA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:27V8F55cWmQ57MYkPzYm85t6WFg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <86ed8ujg7j.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Bytes: 2824

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
....
> I see.  So it isn't that you think "ANSI C" is wrong, just
> that it might be misleading or that C89 or C90 is preferable.

ANSI's documentation is quite clear about the fact that there is, at any
time, only one ANSI C standard, which is the version most recently
approved - the older versions cease to be ANSI standards as soon as
newer ones are approved. C17 is the current ANSI standard for C.
Therefore, using "ANSI C" to mean specifically C89 is inaccurate, unless
the wording makes it clear that it's referring to a time period when
that was the current ANSI C standard.

> Personally I would be surprised if someone used "ANSI C" to
> mean anything other than C89/C90, 

I would expect the term to be used almost exclusively by people who
incorrectly think that it means C89. Since it became an ISO standard
with C90, few people who care about the latest version of the C standard
worry about the parallel ANSI standard. Most people never got into the
habit of using "ISO C" to mean specifically C90, so they didn't need to
break that habit when it was superseded by C99.