WG14 N746 J11/97-109 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces Secretariat: U.S.A. (ANSI) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N2541 August 1997 TITLE: Summary of Voting on CD Registration for CD 9899 - Information technology - Programming languages - Programming Language C (Revision of ISO/IEC 9899:1990) SOURCE: Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 WORK ITEM: JTC 1.22.20.01 STATUS: CD 9899 has been registered. CROSS REFERENCE: SC22 N2444 DOCUMENT TYPE: Summary of Voting ACTION: To SC22 Member Bodies for information. To WG14 for preparation of a Disposition of Comments Report and a recommendation on the further processing of the CD. Address reply to: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat William C. Rinehuls 8457 Rushing Creek Court Springfield, VA 22153 USA Tel: +1 (703) 912-9680 Fax: +1 (703) 912-2973 email: rinehuls@access.digex.net ____________end of title page; beginning of overall summary ____________ SUMMARY OF VOTING ON Letter Ballot Reference No: SC22 N2444 Circulated by: JTC 1/SC22 Circulation Date: 04-09-1997 Closing Date: 07-25-1997 SUBJECT: CD Registration Ballot for CD 9899: Information technology - Programming languages - Programming Language C (Revision of ISO/IEC 9899:1990) The following responses have been received on the subject of approval: "P" Members supporting approval without comment 13 "P" Members supporting approval with comment 1 "P" Members not supporting approval 1 "P" Members abstaining 3 "P" Members not voting 6 Secretariat Action: CD 9899 has been registered. The comment accompanying the abstention vote from Austria was: "Lack of expert resources." The comment accompanying the abstention vote from France was: "Due to lack of resources". The comment accompanying the abstention vote from Germany was: "There is no national WG14 rapporteur." The comments accompanying the affirmative vote from Japan and the comments accompanying the negative vote from Denmark are attached. WG14 is requested to prepare a Disposition of Comments Report and make a recommendation on the further processing of the CD. _________ end of overall summary; beginning of detailed summary _____ ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 LETTER BALLOT SUMMARY PROJECT NO: JTC 1.22.20.01 SUBJECT: CD Registration Ballot for CD 9899: Information technology - Programming languages - Programming Language C (Revision of ISO/IEC 9899:1990) Reference Document No: N2444 Ballot Document No: N2444 Circulation Date: 04-09-1997 Closing Date: 07-25-1997 Circulated To: SC22 P,L Circulated By: Secretariat SUMMARY OF VOTING AND COMMENTS RECEIVED Approve Disapprove Abstain Comments Not Voting 'P' Members Australia (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Austria ( ) ( ) (X) (X) ( ) Belgium (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Brazil ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Canada (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) China ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Czech Republic ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Denmark ( ) (X) ( ) (X) ( ) Egypt (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Finland (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) France ( ) ( ) (X) (X) ( ) Germany ( ) ( ) (X) (X) ( ) Ireland ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Japan (X) ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Netherlands (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Norway (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Romania ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Russian Federation (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Slovenia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Sweden (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Switzerland (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) UK (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Ukraine (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) USA (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 'O' Members Argentina ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Bulgaria ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Cuba ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Greece ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Hungary ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Iceland ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) India ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Indonesia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Italy ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Korea Republic ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) New Zealand ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Poland ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Portugal ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Singapore ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Thailand ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Turkey ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Yugoslavia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) _____________ end of overall summary; beginning of Danish comments __ Hereby the Danish vote on SC22 N2444 - CD Registration ISO/IEC 9899 C The Danish vote is "no". The document does not have a number of required components. DS is missing: 1. POSIX alignment on internationalization functionality 2. POSIX alignment with strftime() 3. Basic IO functionality 4. Boolean type capabilities The vote will be changed to "yes" if functionality for the 4 areas is included in the specification. It is also our opinion that a number of other facilities that WG14 has wanted to be in the standard, is not included in the document. ___________end of Danish comments; beginning of Japanese comments _____ Japanese Vote for ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 N 2444 CD Registration Ballot for CD 9899: Information technology - Programming languages - Programming Language C (revision of ISO/IEC 9899:1990) Japan votes "YES" on ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 N 2444, "CD Registration Ballot for CD 9899: Information technology - Programming languages - Programming Language C (revision of ISO/IEC 9899:1990)" with the following comments: 1. Technical Comments --------------------- 1) Type long long int and lldiv_t should be optional. Paragraph 1 of subclause 5.2.4.1 (page 19 in draft 9), paragraph 3 of subclause 6.1.2.5 (page 32 in draft 9), constraints of subclause 6.5.2 (page 83 in draft 9), and paragraph 2 of subclause 7.13 (page 258 in draft 9): Type (unsigned) long long int is introduced into the draft 9 as a mandatory part of the standard C. The maximum and minimum values for an object of type (unsigned) long long int are defined in the subclause 5.2.4.2. These values need to be represented by using 64 bit data type. Implementation of type (unsigned) long long int, however, is too hard for the compiler on the currently widely used 16 or 32 bit architecture machines. The cross compiler on the small machine must especially face a big difficulty when implementing type (unsigned) long long int. Therefore, type (unsigned) long long int should be a part of an optional specification or a part of the common extension of the standard C. A new type lldiv_t defined in subclause 7.13 should be reconsidered as well as type long long int. 2) Type complex should be optional. Paragraph 7 of subclause 6.1.2.5 (page 33 in draft 9): Japan thinks the number of the user of type complex is not so big. Therefore, type complex should be optional or a part of the common extension of the standard C. 3) Function atoll() should be dropped. Subclause 7.13.1.4 (page 260 in draft 9): A new function atoll() is redundant for the standard C. (Every ato*() functions can be replaced by strto*().) The functions which can be directly replaced by other functions should not be included in the standard C. Not introducing redundant functions was one of the important policies of development of the Amendment 1. This policy is clearly described in the annex B.3 of the Amendment 1. If the committee had determined to include the function atoll() by some strong reason, why are NOT atod(), atold() included in the draft 9? Please drop atoll() from the draft, or please document a clear rationale which describes the reason why only atoll() was added. 4) Encoding of the execution character set and the source character set Paragraph 1 of subclause 5.2.1.2 (page 16 in draft 9): The draft says in paragraph 1 of subclause 5.2.1.2: The execution character set may also contain multibyte characters, which need not have the same encoding as for the source character set. - The presence, meaning, and representation of any additional members is locale-specific. This description implies that the program needs to behave correctly even if the encoding is different between the execution character set and the source character set. This requirement is too heavy for the implementer of the standard C. Therefore, the standard should say explicitly that the behavior is *unspecified* when the encoding is different between the execution character set and the source character set. 5) Illegal example of ## operator Paragraph 4 (example) of subclause 6.8.3.3 (page 131 in draft 9): In the Example of the ## operator(paragraph 4 of subclause 6.8.3.3 (page 131)), that is, ----------------------------------------------------- #define hash_hash # ## # #define mkstr(a) # a #define in_between(a) mkstr(a) #define join(c, d) in_between(c hash_hash d) char p[] = join(x, y); /* equivalent to */ /* char p[] = "x ## y"; */ The expansion produces, at various stages: join(x, y) in_between(x hash_hash y) in_between(x ## y) ---- line (A) mkstr(x ## y) "x ## y" ----------------------------------------------------- an object-like macro "hash_hash" is replaced by "##" at line (A). Well then, what kind of preprocessing-token is the "##" at line (A)? First, we can not find out any preprocessing-token other than "operator" for ##, therefore, the ## at line (A) must be the operator. Right? If so, the following description in the example must be incorrect: In other words, expanding hash_hash produces a new token, consisting of two adjacent sharp signs, but this new token is not the catenation operator. This description certainly says that ## is a token, but it is not the operator. Well, for the above description, should we read like the following sentence? ...this new token is the operator as preprocessing-token, but does not function as the catenation operator. Even if so, this situation violates the Constraints of subclause 6.1.5 "Operator"(page 45 in draft 9) unless "##" in line (A) is considered as an operator: The operators # and ## shall occur in macro-defining preprocessing directives only. If we think a case that "##" is not a single preprocessing-token, then a behavior of this example must be undefined because of a paragraph 3 of subclause 6.8.3.3 "the ## operator" (page 130 in draft 9): If the result is not a valid preprocessing token, the behavior is undefined. Anyway, whichever we choose, that is, the violation of the constraints or the undefined behavior, this example is not suitable for the example of the standard C. 6) Incorporation of Amendment 1 Some important description about resetting the orientation of the stream seems to be necessary to add to the existing functions like fsetpos(), fseek(), rewind() and so on. In order to incorporate Amendment 1 correctly into the revised standard C it is necessary to review the current draft from more precise viewpoint. Japan will provide the review result in the near future from the multibyte character user's standpoint. 2. Editorial Comments --------------------- 1) The reference ISO/IEC 646:1983 must be ISO/IEC 646:1991. Paragraph 1 of clause 2 (page 2 in draft 9): The normative reference for ISO 7-bit codes character set is defined as ISO 646:1983. That is old. It must be the latest one ISO/IEC 646:1991. 2) Locale-specific behavior Paragraph 4 of Clause 4 (page 6 in draft 9): The description "an implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines all implementation-defined characteristics and all extensions." should also mention "the locale-specific behavior" which is defined in the subclause 3.13. 3) The term "English alphabet" should be "Latin alphabet. Paragraph 3 of clause 5.2.1 (page 15 in draft 9) The term "English alphabet" described in paragraph 3 of clause 5.2.1 should be replaced by the term "Latin alphabet" in order to clarify that the alphabetical characters listed in 5.2.1 are same one which are defined in ISO/IEC 646 IRV. 4) Terminology of a null character A many variety of the representation of "null character" is used in the draft 9. For example, - A byte with all bits zero, subclause 5.2.1.2 (page 17) - '\0', subclause 6.1.3.4 (page 43) - code of value zero, subclause 6.1.4 (page 44) - \0 escape sequence, footnote 33 (page 44) - zero-valued code, subclause 6.5.7 (page 104) - code value zero, subclause 7.1.1 (page 139) - code with value zero, subclause 7.13.8.1 (page 277) - terminating zero code, subclause 7.13.8.1 (page 278) So, they should be represented by using a same term. 5) Placemaker should be included in preprocessing token. Paragraph 1 (syntax) of Subclause 6.1 (page 26 in draft 9): Placemaker defined in 6.8.3.2 is not included in the syntax of preprocessing token. It should be included. 6) Wrong references There are a lot of references which points to wrong subclauses. Please correct them. The following is a list of such a kind of wrong references as far as we know: - 6.1.2.4, page 31 Allocated storage is described in 7.12.3 -> 7.13.3 - 6.1.3.4, page 43 the mbtowc function(7.12.7.2) -> 7.13.7.2 - 7.2.1.1, page 146 the abort function(7.12.14.1) -> 7.13.14.1 - 7.3, page 147 EOF(7.11.1) -> 7.12.1 Footnote 121. See "future library directions" (7.18.2) -> 7.19.2 - 7.5.1.1, page 161 and 162 Footnote 125. See "future library directions" (7.18.3) -> 7.19.3 (7.11.6) -> (7.12.6) (7.12.7) -> (7.13.7) (7.12.8) -> (7.13.8) (7.12.1) -> (7.13.1) (7.13.4.3) -> (7.14.4.3) (7.14.4.5) -> (7.15.3.5) (7.13.4.5) -> (7.14.4.5) - 7.17.2.2, page 302 (4.5.2.1) -> 7.3.1 - 7.17.2.2.2, page 302 (4.5.2.1) -> 7.17.2 Index is also having wrong subclause numbers. Please maintain the index correctly also. 7) Needs the Rationale for the type-qualifier restrict. Paragraph 1 of subclause 6.5.3 (page 90 in draft 9): An introduction of the new type-qualifier restrict is one of the significant changes to the standard C so that the clear rationale is necessary for the user and implementor of the standard C. 8) New syntax of designator is not included in Syntax Summary. Paragraph 1 of subclause 6.5.7 (page 101 in draft 9) and Annex B "Language Syntax Summary" (page 353 in draft 9): New syntax designator and related syntax are not included in the Annex B "Language Syntax Summary". It must be included. (Generally speaking, the Annex B should be revised along the draft standard.) 9) A typo in example 10 of "6.5.7 initializer" Paragraph 23 of subclause 6.5.7(example #10) (page 107 if draft 9): "struct { init a[3], b; } w[] =" should be changed to "struct { int a[3], b; } w[] =" 10) Macro replacement Paragraph 3 of subclause 6.8.3 (page 128 if draft 9): A description "may be redefined" of paragraph 3 of subclause 6.8.3 should be changed to "shall not be redefined by ... unless ..." like the paragraph 2. 11) Definitions of terms of the library clause Subclause 7.1.1 (page 139 in draft 9): Definitions of terms of the library clause (subclause 7.1.1) should be incorporated into the clause 3 "Definitions and conventions." 12) Example of implicit declaration Paragraph 3 (example) of subclause 7.1.7 (page 145 in draft 9): ISO 9899 has an example of implicit declaration in subclause "7.1.7 use of library functions." In draft 9, however, the example is removed. Of course, "implicit declaration" can not be recommended strongly to users, but the draft standard says explicitly "... it is also permissible to declare the function, either explicitly or implicitly." Therefore we think it is not necessary to remove the example. Please add the example to the standard. 13) Missing a footnote 155 in "7.8 complex arithmetic " Paragraph 2 of subclause 7.8 (page 201 in draft 9): A description corresponding to the footnote 155 is missing. 14) A double argument for the conversion specifier Subclause 7.12.6.1 (page 232 - 233 in draft 9) and subclause 7.18.2.1 (page 308 - 309 in draft 9): In the description about the conversion specifier f, F, e, E and G of the function f[w]printf, "a double argument representing a floating-point number is..." should be changed to "a double argument representing a normalized floating-point number is..." ^^^^^^^^^^ in order to clarify the range and the definition of the double argument. 15) Needs a rationale of changes of some values. Paragraph 14 (Returns) of subclause 7.12.6.1 (page 236 in draft 9): In "Returns" of "7.12.6.1 the fprintf function", "the minimum value for the maximum number of characters produced by any single conversion" was changed of 509 (in ISO 9899) to 4095 (in draft 9). We can not figure out the reason why this value was changed. So we need a rationale document which describes the reason. Subclause 5.2.4.1 translation limits (page 18 - 19 in draft 9): We need a rationale document about the changes of translation limits also. 16) What is "additional locale-specific subsequence forms" of strto*() function? Description of subclause 7.15.1.* (strto*) (page 260 to 266 in draft 9): All of function strto*() have the following description: In other than the "C" locale, additional locale-specific subsequence forms may be accepted. We, however, can not figure out the additional locale-specific subsequence forms in other than the "C" locale. Please add the example or make a rationale document which describe the purpose of the above description. 17) Typo in footnote 190 Footnote 190 (page 261 if draft 9): stdtod -> strtod 18) Typo in "7.13.1.9 the strtoll function" Synopsis of subclause 7.13.1.9 (page 264 in draft 9): "Strtol" should be changed to "strtoll". 19) Typo in "7.17.3.2.2 the towctrans function" Paragraph 2 of subclause 7.13.3.2.2 (page 304 in draft 9): "... same as during the call to wctrans that returned the value desc." should be changed to "... same as during the call to towctrans that returned the value desc." ^^^^^^^^^ 20) Typo in example #2 of "7.18.2.2 the fwscanf function" Paragraph 21 (example #2) of subclause 7.18.2.2 (page 317 in draft 9): "Will assign to i the value 56 and to x the value 7.10.0. will skip ..." should be changed to "will assign to i the value 56 and to x the value 789.0 will skip ..." ^^^^^ 21) Annex I.5 "Common Extension" should be reconsidered. Annex I.5 (page 426 if draft 9): A purpose of the existence of Annex I.5 "Common Extension" is not clear. We think each of the extensions of Annex I.5 should be moved to the appropriate clause of the normative part of the standard or a normative Annex by using the verb "may." And the content of each extension should be reviewed from the viewpoint of the current trend of C language. ____________________ end of SC22 N2541 _____________________________