Tom Plum encouraged me to start using that term several years ago. He was looking ahead to a day when both ANSI and ISO would complete their work on a C standard. Like many of us, he was and remains fiercely dedicated to the notion that the two standards should be identical. The last thing we wanted was an endless debate on the relative merits, and the relative importance, of ANSI C versus ISO C.

Just to get people in the habit, Tom argued, start using the term Standard C. Call it ANSI C where you must, but go easy on any nationalistic sentiments. Plan ahead.

That, of course, is why my monthly column in The C Users Journal has been called "Standard C" from the outset, over two years ago. That is why Jim Brodie and I called our comprehensive reference, Standard C, even though the state of both ANSI and ISO standards were uncertain the day we froze copy. That is why I cheer whenever I see others adopt the term as a matter of course.

I am happy to pass on some good news from Dave Prosser. Dave is the Editor of both standards. He has been wrestling for months, in his copious spare time, with the formatting requirements imposed by ISO. (The two standards may be identical semantically, but the separate organizations have in the past required different layouts, and sometimes even different spellings of words.) Dave called me the day before Thanksgiving to report that the final version of the ISO C standard was on its way to Geneva.

Unless we on WG14 miss a beat, we should have an official ISO standard by the end of 1990. Standard C has thus become a fitting term, one that rolls off the tnogue more smoothly than ANSI/ISO C. Tom Plum, and quite a few others, are getting their wish.

The battle is far from over. NIST, the government agency in charge of specifying language standards for government procurement, has its oar in the water. They have already proposed additional requirements on conforming translators, typically in the area of error reporting. As far as I know, they haven't changed the underlying language. At least not yet. And X3J16 is busy standardizing C+ +. Many of us have a concern that this newer language not deviate arbitrarily from its C heritage.

Extensions to C itself are now under active consideration within WG14. There is a growing concensus that this is the proper venue for exploring proposed changes to C, since most of the changes affect the international community.

C is not Latin. So long as it is alive and growing, it will change. At this moment in time, however, it is refreshing to know that there really is a Standard C.

P. J. Plauger
Editor