Re: Good hash for pointers

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 */