Message-Id: <200007071725.UAA10131@alpha.netvision.net.il>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:26:50 +0200
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3965A400.30853.4EF07@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: mkdoc patch
References: <200007070736 DOT JAA12848 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> (message from Martin	Stromberg on Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:36:02 +0200 (MET DST)) <3965A400 DOT 30853 DOT 4EF07 AT localhost>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:33:52 -0400
> 
> > I agree that it's a good idea.  However, one of these two should be
> > called ANSI.  Or maybe even ANSI(C89) and ANSI(C99).  Otherwise we
> 
> Why not be internationally corect and call it 'ISO C'?

Why not, indeed?

How about "ANSI/ISO C"?