From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: craig@jcb-sc.com To: sb@metis.no Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com Subject: Re: i18n of egcs Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19990428125916.2796.qmail@deer> References: <3728dd6b.52244689@mailer.gwdg.de> <372e1dac.68695550@mailer.gwdg.de> X-SW-Source: 1999-04n/msg00994.html Message-ID: <19990430231500.4RWxDDm7akMBFPgDYyjZWFuvJTQOL8xtDaes0ppilaM@z> >Maybe the flag for strict ISO compliance should change from -ansi to >-iso as well? (should one keep the old flag for backwards >compatibility or is that just useless baggage that should be >discarded?) Keep the old flag. There *is* still an ANSI C standard that gcc supports, I believe! (It is one thing for a *speaker* to choose the "most appropriate" term or phrase. It is quite another for a *listener* to insist on only that one most appropriate term, rejecting any other. In this case, plenty of people already acquainted with the ANSI C standard as such should not be forced to learn to say "ISO C" all the time. *We* (egcs developers) force *ourselves* to say that, because we're essentially in the role of "public speakers" here. That doesn't mean we should force *everyone* to use "ISO C", even on command-line options.) tq vm, (burley)