X-Authentication-Warning: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:56:54 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender: broeker AT acp3bf
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: mkdoc patch
In-Reply-To: <200007071341.JAA10990@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007071551580.28224-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> > If we are in the adding mode, why not add C89 and C99 too?
> 
> Or have something like:
> 
> ANSI: K&R, C89

'K&R' feels like the wrong term to mention as a flavour of ANSI. K&R
either means the first edition of their book, K&R1, which is usually the
exact opposite of ANSI, or K&R2, which is equivalent to ANSI C89.

Something like

	ANSI: yes 

if it's ANSI ever since C89, or 

	ANSI: yes, since C99

if it's something new, only introduced with C99, feels better.

Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.