Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Good hash for pointers
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:17:55 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <87bk3xzyi4.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.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>
	<86ed8ujg7j.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:17:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="14c46e9d4441e9b6d7e573ea203ad727";
	logging-data="1632188"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1ews7KDfYSDNGrEsLCSFY"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zGJTPez6Czqk/9SD3PSpcy7kqH0=
	sha1:pQN75wB+Z5glLPKfRZKNXPsuuGI=
Bytes: 3535

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> 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.

The term "ANSI C" almost universally refers to C89/C90.  But someone
not familiar with the term might expect it to mean "the C standard
endorsed by ANSI", which is currently C17.

The term "ANSI C" started out as a way to refer to the newly
standardized language, distinguishing it from pre-standard versions
like the one documented in K&R1.

I don't necessarily complain when someone uses the phrase "ANSI C"
to mean C89/C90, but I try to avoid it myself in favor of "C89" or
"C90".

Hmm.  It occurs to me that "K&R C", which usually refers to the
language defined in K&R1, is also potentially ambiguous.  I'm not
going to worry about it too much.  (One C compiler uses a "-ansic"
command-line option to cause it to attempt to conform to C99.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */