Re: Still a lot of C++ files getting "fixed"

[Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>]

Am Mit, 26 Jan 2000 schrieb Kaveh R. Ghazi:
>> From: Zack Weinberg <zack@wolery.cumb.org>
> > > 
> > > Since the "foo//*bar*/" case is valid c89, I think _not_ warning is
> > > perhaps the right thing to do.
> > 
> > I think you misunderstand.  -ansi -pedantic shouldn't parse // as a
> > comment start at all.  -std=gnu89 -pedantic should parse // as a
> > comment start but give a warning because an extension is being used.
> > (Probably only once per input file, to avoid extreme obnoxiousness.)
> > zw
>
>Yes, for user code.
>
>I still think we should always silently accept // comments in system
>headers no matter what.  Even if -ansi -pedantic.  (Otherwise we can't
>stop "fixing" these headers.)

What I'm stating here might be totally silly, but this question was in my mind
since this -ansi discussion restarted.

Aren't there international treatys between ISO and the local standard
organizations like ANSI, stating that ISO standards are automatically local
standards too? So if ISO defines C99 it's also an ANSI standard? For me that
would mean -ansi now should check for ISO C99 compliance and if a user wants to
check for the old and now outdated ANSI C89 he has to use a different flag like
-ansi=c89. So -ansi or -iso would always mean the latest official standard.

Puzzled, :-)
Franz.