«

Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The ``Committee Draft'' dated
January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.

To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing more?

Bob Nelson said:

> Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
> term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?

Only in the PDF disclaimer.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Bob Nelson said:
>
>> Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
>> term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?
>
> Only in the PDF disclaimer.

I am unable to find this anywhere in my PDF copy of:
BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999 Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No. 1.

Tak-Shing

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Bob Nelson wrote:

> Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
> term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?

No.

> The ``Committee Draft'' dated
> January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.

Clause 3 of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 states that ``terms not defined
in this International Standard are to be interpreted according to
ISO/IEC 2382-1''.

In this context, a ``data processing system'' refers to
``one or more computers, peripheral equipment, and software that
perform data processing'' (ISO 2382-1:1993, 01.01.20).

> To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing more?

No, the behavior of an ``abstract machine'' is not the same
as the behavior of the underlying ``data processing system'',
because ``issues of optimization are irrelevant'' (ISO/IEC
9899:1999, 5.1.2.3 paragraph 1).

Tak-Shing

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:16:29 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Tak-Shing Chan
<> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> Bob Nelson said:
>>
>>> Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
>>> term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?
>>
>> Only in the PDF disclaimer.
>
> I am unable to find this anywhere in my PDF copy of:
>BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999 Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No. 1.

This is probably because you're looking at it from the Contents page
onwards, or else the BS version of the pdf is differently prefixed to
the ISO/IEC version..

-------------
Page 2 of 554:

ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with
Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but shall
not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to
and installed on the computer performing the editing. In downloading
this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing
Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat accepts no
liability in this
area.
-------------
etc
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

"Bob Nelson" <> wrote in message
> Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
> term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The ``Committee Draft'' dated
> January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.
>
> To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing
> more?
>
I can't afford expensive electronics.
I've outsourced and now I have a room full of chinamen, all madly moving
symbols about on shelves. Our English lettters are as meaningful to them as
Chinese characters are to us, but they've got simple instructions like "move
from shelf 1 to shelf 2". Finally the room is built over a stream, and
little paper baots with letters are floated out of the stream. Another
Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.

It's a perfectly good system. They're currently working on a 300 city
travelling slaesman problem.

--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.

Malcolm said:

>
> "Bob Nelson" <> wrote in message
>> Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
>> term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The ``Committee Draft'' dated
>> January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.
>>
>> To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing
>> more?
>>
> I can't afford expensive electronics.
> I've outsourced and now I have a room full of chinamen, all madly moving
> symbols about on shelves. Our English lettters are as meaningful to them
> as Chinese characters are to us, but they've got simple instructions like
> "move from shelf 1 to shelf 2".

Are you renting the room from John Searle?


> Finally the room is built over a stream,
> and little paper baots with letters are floated out of the stream. Another
> Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.
>
> It's a perfectly good system. They're currently working on a 300 city
> travelling slaesman problem.

I think some of the baots are coming downstream in the worgn order.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

Malcolm wrote:

>
> "Bob Nelson" <> wrote in message
> > Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language
> > mention the term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The
> > ``Committee Draft'' dated January 1999 refers to only to a ``data
> > processing system''.
> >
> > To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and
> > nothing more?
> >
> I can't afford expensive electronics.
> I've outsourced and now I have a room full of chinamen, all madly
> moving symbols about on shelves. Our English lettters are as
> meaningful to them as Chinese characters are to us, but they've got
> simple instructions like "move from shelf 1 to shelf 2". Finally the
> room is built over a stream, and little paper baots with letters are
> floated out of the stream. Another Chinaman transcribes them and
> sends the results to me by surface mail.
>
> It's a perfectly good system. They're currently working on a 300 city
> travelling slaesman problem.

Yeah, but they probably eat a lot and produce a lot of heat. You should
have developed a system based on ants.




Brian

In article <>, Richard Heathfield <> writes:
> Malcolm said:
>
> > Finally the room is built over a stream,
> > and little paper baots with letters are floated out of the stream. Another
> > Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.
>
> I think some of the baots are coming downstream in the worgn order.

You know what they say: Junk in, junk out.

--
Michael Wojcik

Malcolm wrote:
> Another
> Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.


The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a
line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude,
chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
I believe the preferred term is "Asian-American."
- Walter Sobchak