Talk:ANSI C

message: What information is here that isn't already covered in a better format at C programming language? I wouldn't be averse to an article on C standards or Variants of the C programming language (corresponding to the German article :de:Varianten der Programmiersprache C), but this is just ridiculous. —Keenan Pepper 23:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless 

message: "Standard C" is not to be used in reference to ANSI C. "Standard C" is from the 1st K&R book. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's just plain wrong. "Standard C" is the C defined by the Standard. K&R1 described "pre-Standard" or "K&R" C. If you really wanted to be misleadingly technical, you could call K&R C "Portable C" because it was (similar to) the C compiled by the Portable C Compiler; but it definitely wasn't "Standard C". (These days, "Standard C" could refer to either ANSI standard C, aka C90, or the C defined by the newer ISO standard, aka C99.) --Quuxplusone 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Standard C"? 

message: I had included a link which gives a list of drafts for different C standards, because I thought it would be helpful for those who want to have a look at the standard or get a copy of it easily. But Wrp103 reverted that, and told me that "External links should generally be primary sites; that site seems more like a collection of links".  I do not see anything wrong in including that link as they are drafts produced by ANSI/ISO committee, and I have also seen many other articles containing external links to pages which only links and short description. Please let me know your opinion on this.(Avsharath 03:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links - Link to a list of Draft standards

message: This article said there were some changes to ISO 90 that made it slightly different than ANSI 89.Does anyone know what those differences are?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.92.225 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This website implies that __STDC_VERSION__ didn't exist until C90. – kentyman (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANSI 89 and ISO 90 

message: This website mentions a C94, but this article doesn't seem to address it. Does anyone have more information on this standard? – kentyman (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "C94" or C95 is an amendment of C89. The correct title is ISO/IEC 9899:199409, so it was published in september 1994. --RokerHRO (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the title as shown on each page of the document is "ISO/IEC 9899:1990/Amendment 1:1995 (E)" or in short form (on pages i-iv and 39-52) "ISO/IEC 9899:1990/Amd. 1:1995 (E)".  The front cover gives the date as 1995-04-01.  The 199409 date comes from the __STDC_VERSION__ definition (page 2).  Presumably the final editing of that value in the body of the document was done in 1994, but it was published in 1995. Joseph Myers (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  C94? 

message: AFAICT Clang aims to be standards-compliant as we, so might add it to the list of standards-compliant compilers. --84.62.226.16 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compilers supporting ANSI C -- LLVM's Clang? 

message: Why do you need a citation for "long and arduous process" for a process that began in 1983 and ended in 1989, the end result of which was a document that standardised a major programming language to the satisfaction of all parties? Six years is a long time on a human scale - almost a tenth of a lifetime - regardless of whether someone has written down in a book that "six years is a long time". The fact that the process was arduous can be deduced from the quality of the product. Nothing that good comes easy [citation needed].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.123.184 (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Citation needed' not needed 

message: What is this article about? Is it about [the road to] ANSI C89/ISO C90, as the first few words (and the "summary" in C (programming language)#ANSI C and ISO C) seem to indicate, or is it about all C standards, as the rest of the article seems to indicate?
If it's about C standards in general, I don't get why it's called "ANSI C" rather than "ISO C", or indeed why it's not just part of C (programming language); ANSI C really isn't used to refer to the later standards except insofar as they are compatible with the original standard and different from the traditional "K&R" dialects.
If it's about C89/C90 [and the process of creating the standard], there's a lot of extraneous material (starting with the C99 section) in this article that should be [re]moved.
Either way, the supposed summary at C (programming language)#ANSI C and ISO C actually has a lot of material that is missing from this article. —SamB (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of article 

message: Why is there no mention of Technical Corrigendums?  Those were legal changes of the standard.  See here:
http://c-faq.com/ansi/ansi1.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.5.51 (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TC1/TC2 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion