On 14 March 2011 11:25, Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@gmx.net> wrote:e.g.
> On 14/03/2011 12:17, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> You could try just reading the standards; speculation here is worse
>> than futile, as it only encourages foolishness.
>> ISO C99:
> Well, not everybody has this document at hand...
The first page above carries the disclaimer "Please note that the
final standard as it has been ratified may differ substantially from
the working document referenced by the links above!" but I have never
heard anything to suggest that this is actually a problem.
If you don't think this is good enough, and you can't access a real
copy of the standard, then better remain silent on the subject.
In fairness to previous authors in this thread, I do think that not
freely publishing standards in this day and age is stupid (because if
they're not freely available, they'll be ignored by people who can't
afford to buy them, which wastes everybody's time and effort);
standards bodies are yet another industry with a legacy business model
that needs fixing.