> I thought you might be amused to know that, from one point of view,
> you don't need to worry about this. It has been argued that when C99
> superseded C90, all references to C90 in other standards automagically
> became references to C99, even if they were very explicit about being
> references to the 1990 version of that standard.

Who has argued this way?  It's not true.  Although ISO standards are
permitted to refer to the current versions of other ISO standards, they must
do so explicitly.  If a reference includes a version identification, as the
C++ standard does in its reference to the C standard, then the reference is
to the cited version, even if that version is superseded.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

ark@acm.org ("Andrew Koenig") wrote in message news:<RR8Xb.30674$fV5.648130@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > I thought you might be amused to know that, from one point of view,
> > you don't need to worry about this. It has been argued that when C99
> > superseded C90, all references to C90 in other standards automagically
> > became references to C99, even if they were very explicit about being
> > references to the 1990 version of that standard.
>
> Who has argued this way?  It's not true.  Although ISO standards are
> permitted to refer to the current versions of other ISO standards, they must
> do so explicitly.  If a reference includes a version identification, as the
> C++ standard does in its reference to the C standard, then the reference is
> to the cited version, even if that version is superseded.

See <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=31&thl=1284208962,1284142571,1284060049,1284364991,1284342903,1284224290,1284110448,1284070909,1283818781,1283812019,1283682482,1283989633&seekm=3C2DC9C9.A4A9ECA6%40wizard.net#link36>

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Jack Klein wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:15:39 +0000 (UTC), richard@ex-parrot.com
> (Richard Smith) wrote in comp.std.c++:
>
> > Can anyone
> > suggest where I might still be able to obtain an electronic copy of
> > C90?
>
> Still available from the British Standards Institute:

Thanks.  I've just done this.

--
Richard Smith

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

kuyper@wizard.net (James Kuyper) wrote in message news:<8b42afac.0402161017.2e328b31@posting.google.com>...
> ark@acm.org ("Andrew Koenig") wrote in message news:<RR8Xb.30674$fV5.648130@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > I thought you might be amused to know that, from one point of view,
> > > you don't need to worry about this. It has been argued that when C99
> > > superseded C90, all references to C90 in other standards automagically
> > > became references to C99, even if they were very explicit about being
> > > references to the 1990 version of that standard.
> >
> > Who has argued this way?  It's not true.  Although ISO standards are
> > permitted to refer to the current versions of other ISO standards, they must
> > do so explicitly.  If a reference includes a version identification, as the
> > C++ standard does in its reference to the C standard, then the reference is
> > to the cited version, even if that version is superseded.
>
> See <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=31&thl=1284208962,1284142571,1284060049,1284364991,1284342903,1284224290,1284110448,1284070909,1283818781,1283812019,1283682482,1283989633&seekm=3C2DC9C9.A4A9ECA6%40wizard.net#link36>

I am surprised not to see a reply from Francis on this because
as far as I can see you have misunderstood the posting of his to
which you refer.  It says that in e.g. safety legislation,
references to a standard (without explicit version) refer to
the version of the standard at the time of reading, not writing.

That doesn't seem to apply here.  Standard C++ is free to reference
C90 as a specific document just as any standard is free to reference
any other specific document.  1.2 references ISO/IEC 9899:1990 and
discusses the problem of validity and revisions.  Moreover it
describes 9899:1990 as a "standard", whereas it describes the
C++ Standard as an "International Standard".  Surely this is not
an accident - it is awareness of the fact that the C standard
referred to may cease to be an International Standard.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

In article <5765b025.0402200306.5c0f0939@posting.google.com>, Al Grant
<algrant@myrealbox.com> writes
>I am surprised not to see a reply from Francis on this because
>as far as I can see you have misunderstood the posting of his to
>which you refer.  It says that in e.g. safety legislation,
>references to a standard (without explicit version) refer to
>the version of the standard at the time of reading, not writing.
>
>That doesn't seem to apply here.  Standard C++ is free to reference
>C90 as a specific document just as any standard is free to reference
>any other specific document.  1.2 references ISO/IEC 9899:1990 and
>discusses the problem of validity and revisions.  Moreover it
>describes 9899:1990 as a "standard", whereas it describes the
>C++ Standard as an "International Standard".  Surely this is not
>an accident - it is awareness of the fact that the C standard
>referred to may cease to be an International Standard.

Well if you want a comment from me, reading the ISO Standard on
standards leaves me questioning ISO's standard because there it
specifies that referenced documents must be available. AFAIK the
document referenced by the C++ Standard is not available from ISO at any
price yet it is a breach of copyright for me to give you an electronic
copy of it.

The available BSI version of the amended C90 is strictly speaking, not
the document referenced by the C++ Standard (even though all the
normative words are the same:-)


--
Francis Glassborow      ACCU
Author of 'You Can Do It!' see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit
For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

algrant@myrealbox.com (Al Grant) wrote in message news:<5765b025.0402200306.5c0f0939@posting.google.com>...
> kuyper@wizard.net (James Kuyper) wrote in message news:<8b42afac.0402161017.2e328b31@posting.google.com>...
> > ark@acm.org ("Andrew Koenig") wrote in message news:<RR8Xb.30674$fV5.648130@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > > I thought you might be amused to know that, from one point of view,
> > > > you don't need to worry about this. It has been argued that when C99
> > > > superseded C90, all references to C90 in other standards automagically
> > > > became references to C99, even if they were very explicit about being
> > > > references to the 1990 version of that standard.
> > >
> > > Who has argued this way?  It's not true.  Although ISO standards are
> > > permitted to refer to the current versions of other ISO standards, they must
> > > do so explicitly.  If a reference includes a version identification, as the
> > > C++ standard does in its reference to the C standard, then the reference is
> > > to the cited version, even if that version is superseded.
> >
> > See <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=31&thl=1284208962,1284142571,1284060049,1284364991,1284342903,1284224290,1284110448,1284070909,1283818781,1283812019,1283682482,1283989633&seekm=3C2DC9C9.A4A9ECA6%40wizard.net#link36>
>
> I am surprised not to see a reply from Francis on this because
> as far as I can see you have misunderstood the posting of his to
> which you refer.  It says that in e.g. safety legislation,
> references to a standard (without explicit version) refer to
> the version of the standard at the time of reading, not writing.
>
> That doesn't seem to apply here.  Standard C++ is free to reference
> C90 as a specific document just as any standard is free to reference
> any other specific document.  1.2 references ISO/IEC 9899:1990 and
> discusses the problem of validity and revisions.  Moreover it
> describes 9899:1990 as a "standard", whereas it describes the
> C++ Standard as an "International Standard".  Surely this is not
> an accident - it is awareness of the fact that the C standard
> referred to may cease to be an International Standard.

I agree that those rules shouldn't be applied here; Francis said as
much himself. However, Francis and Nick both said that the ISO and BSI
C committees were of the opinion that those rules did apply to this
case, and that the BSI C committee, at least, were worried about how
inappropriate it was that they should apply to this case. It wasn't
clear from what they said whether the ISO C committee was also
worried.

I have no personal knowledge to back them up; I'm relying entirely
upon their comments.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

The current C++ standard has a normative reference to the C90 standard
(ISO/IEC 9899:1990), and uses these to define by reference large parts
of the C++ standard library.  As the C90 standard has been superceded
by the newer C99 standard, it is no longer possible to obtain C90 from
the ISO or ANSI web stores.

I've managed to locate on the web a copy of a committee draft of C90,
but I'm sure that, if the C++98 standard is anything to go by, there
will be changes between this and the final standard.  Can anyone
suggest where I might still be able to obtain an electronic copy of
C90?

Thanks in advance,

--
Richard Smith

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:15:39 +0000 (UTC), richard@ex-parrot.com
(Richard Smith) wrote in comp.std.c++:

> The current C++ standard has a normative reference to the C90 standard
> (ISO/IEC 9899:1990), and uses these to define by reference large parts
> of the C++ standard library.  As the C90 standard has been superceded
> by the newer C99 standard, it is no longer possible to obtain C90 from
> the ISO or ANSI web stores.
>
> I've managed to locate on the web a copy of a committee draft of C90,
> but I'm sure that, if the C++98 standard is anything to go by, there
> will be changes between this and the final standard.  Can anyone
> suggest where I might still be able to obtain an electronic copy of
> C90?
>
> Thanks in advance,

Still available from the British Standards Institute:

http://bsonline.techindex.co.uk/BSI2/Dir1/SitePage.asp?LS=&PgID=0080&LR=&LD=&Src=&Dest=&Last=&SessID=BLV66VLF9TKU9KN11AADMLFJKNSC5MNE&MSCSID=&ErrID=&SessStat=&Parent=&Child=&PCount=0&LogStat=&URLData=&SEARCH_ID=76DKQC306TKC9PX9ARX1SA9PJPAHDJQB&SEARCH_TYPE=SRCH_TYP_QCK

Watch out for line wrap!

Or http://makeashorterlink.com/?F34A45467

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

richard@ex-parrot.com (Richard Smith) wrote in message news:<1a0929fa.0402120503.283f1161@posting.google.com>...
> The current C++ standard has a normative reference to the C90 standard
> (ISO/IEC 9899:1990), and uses these to define by reference large parts
> of the C++ standard library.  As the C90 standard has been superceded
> by the newer C99 standard, it is no longer possible to obtain C90 from
> the ISO or ANSI web stores.

I thought you might be amused to know that, from one point of view,
you don't need to worry about this. It has been argued that when C99
superseded C90, all references to C90 in other standards automagically
became references to C99, even if they were very explicit about being
references to the 1990 version of that standard.

This makes no sense to me, but it is apparantly a consequence of
taking rules that were developed for hardware standards, and
mis-applying them to software. I'm not convinced it's a good idea for
hardware standards, either, but I'm positive that it's complete
rubbish for software standards.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]