From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-17 07:37:53 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
From: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of
    service attack.
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:33:44 -0400
Organization: PF
Message-ID: <3B7D2B48.3D75@mindspring.com>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <made-on-a-macintosh-969204-20460@usenet.l1t.lt>
 <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com>
 <q22nk9.r1p.ln@10.0.0.2> <JzUb7.1653$NJ6.5860@www.newsranger.com>
 <9kp9n7$ivm$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <apesk9.env.ln@10.0.0.2>
 <sYwc7.3920$NJ6.15560@www.newsranger.com> <r1nuk9.2ua.ln@10.0.0.2>
 <3B73337F.862F8D93@home.com> <9lb7hu$72h$1@norfair.nerim.net>
 <3B7C6977.3648F061@home.com> <bO_e7.71788$B37.1653935@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
 <3B7CE3E1.6F80@mindspring.com> <3b7ceef1.688682654@news.worldonline.nl>
Reply-To: pfiland@mindspring.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.77.47
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 17 Aug 2001 14:37:13 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12049 comp.lang.c:74993
 comp.lang.c++:83422
Date: 2001-08-17T14:37:13+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Richard Bos wrote:
> 
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> > "The standard library is not part of the C language proper,
> > but an environment that supports standard C will provide
> > the function declarations and type and macro definitions
> > of this library."
> >
> > K&R2 appendix B
> 
> That's probably a leftover from the days of K&R 1, 
> when it was true. In ISO C, the Standard describes both the grammar 
> and the library, and both are part of the language.

My old C standard draft says:
"The Committee divided the effort into three pieces: the
environment, the language, and the library.  A complete specification
in each of these areas is necessary if truly portable programs are to
be developed.  Each of these areas is addressed in the Standard."

In the new standard:
section 5 is Environment
section 6 is Language 
section 7 is Library

-- 
 pete