Sujet : Re: Good hash for pointers
De : already5chosen (at) *nospam* yahoo.com (Michael S)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 17. Jun 2024, 10:39:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <20240617123926.00006a12@yahoo.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
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.
Re: Good hash for pointers
Re: Good hash for pointers