Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl c |
"Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com..."Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:
>
Once C was standardised - first by ANSI, then immediately afterwards by ISO - the "definition of C" became clear. The language is covered by an international standard, so "C" is the language defined by that standard. Thus "C" means "C23" at the moment - each newly published C standard "cancels and replaces" the previous version. Ritchie's opinion hasn't had any connection to the "definition of C" since 1989. I don't know if he ever expressed a public opinion on C99, or the plans for C11. I would, however, be astounded if he had considered it "a complete and utter joke of no relation to anything he designed".That depends on your definition of "C". Ritchie is no longer here toAnd C90 (etc) could potentially be extended to include a folder.h>
C90 will never be extended. It was made obsolete by C99, which was made
obsolete by C11, which was made obsolete by C23. You're free to invent
your own language based on C90 if you like, but C went in a different
direction decades ago.
adjudicate whether something close to C90 - in the spirit of the
original C, is the true successor to his language, and which one is
a complete and utter joke of no relation to anything he designed.
A semantic debate that doesn't answer my question either way anyway.You did ask us not to give the obvious answer to your original post.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.