help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Schwarze <>
Subject: Re: -isoC-2017 patch
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:49:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Maya, wrote on Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 03:02:04PM +0000:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 04:23:26PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:

>> seems to indicate the existence of a brand new standard called
>>   ISO/IEC 9899:2018
>>   Information technology -- Programming languages -- C
>> but i failed to find any evidence that an official standard
>> called ISO/IEC 9899:2017 might exist.
>> Can you provide a reference to such a standard?

> I was reading

Aha.  That appears to be outdated.

> which is a draft and unofficial, so yours is more correct.
> (looks like a lot of s/17/18/ will have to be done elsewhere...)


>> Even if it does exist (or if you suggest s/17/18/), note that mandoc
>> does not aim to provide macro arguments for all the standards under
>> the sun.  A new major revision of the C programming language is no
>> doubt an excellent candidate for addition, but i would still welcome
>> solid evidence that it will actually see substantial use in practice.
>> Does the NetBSD base system implement the C18 standard, and are you
>> going to update all the relevant NetBSD manual pages to refer to it,
>> where appropriate?  How many manual pages, approximately, do you
>> expect will reference it in NetBSD in the short term?

> There's not going to be many references to it

That sounds like a strong argument to *not* add it.
There is value in keeping programming languages small (including
mdoc(7)) and avoiding the introduction of low-utility syntax.

> like C11

After looking at the draft, it seems to me that there will likely
even be fewer references to C18 than to C11, given that C11 did
define a small number of new features, which at least in theory
might get implemented and documented.

> because it doesn't add new things, only makes changes to existing
> stuff.

I see.

> I made the first reference to newer-than-C11 to document some change.

I'm not sure i understand that sentence.

You mean, so far, you committed one single change to one single
NetBSD manual page (which one?) using the new macro argument,
to document a change you committed to the NetBSD source code
(which source code commit specifically?).

> It's not critical, it just felt like the right change to do.

Foc comparison, we decided to not add -p1003.1-2017 because it
is not a new version of the standard but merely incorporates
technical corrigenda into -p1003.1-2008.

For the case of the C standard, if differences between C11 and C18
matter for a specific feature, i would consider recommending a
wording like the following:

.Fn foobar
function conforms to
.St -isoC-2011  \" or -isoC-99 or -ansiC where appropriate
including the corrections with respect to BARFOO applied by
ISO/IEC 9899:2018
.Pq Dq ISO C18 .

I expect such cases to remain rare.  If it turns out they become
very numerous, *that* would establish a reason to add a new macro

Does that make sense to you?

 To unsubscribe send an email to

  reply	other threads:[~2018-07-27 15:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-27 13:49 maya
2018-07-27 14:23 ` Ingo Schwarze
2018-07-27 15:02   ` maya
2018-07-27 15:49     ` Ingo Schwarze [this message]
2018-07-27 16:11       ` maya

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: -isoC-2017 patch' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).