Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Good hash for pointers
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:47:28 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <86ed8ujg7j.fsf@linuxsc.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:47:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d4aeba7b4aaab0d94b94221c1561c3e8";
	logging-data="1536444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VYTJ6junXBSxMo9o1JObvAOTtXSmnnO0="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5bzoO32629Zen+NqXBpHSxzANKw=
	sha1:cBsLs8sHAAgVuctF646vT4K11TY=
Bytes: 2507

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 00:56:40 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you say that.  C was an ANSI standard before it
>> was an ISO standard.  Or is it that you think that the language
>> Malcolm is intent on using does not conform to C90/C89/ANSI C?
>
> All I wanted to point by this comment is that ANSI recognizes ISO/IEC
> 9899:2018 as their current C Standard and probably will recognize the
> next ISO C Standard pretty soon.  For that reason I think that names like
> C89 or C90 are preferable (to ANSI C) when we want to refer to this
> particular variant of the language.

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.
Personally I would be surprised if someone used "ANSI C" to
mean anything other than C89/C90, but certainly other people
could have a different reaction.