Re: Order of look-up for included interfaces

[Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>]

Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > >      1) ISO-C99     (pay preview)
> > >      2)SUSv3   www.opengroup.org/austin/
> > >      3)SUSv2   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xshix.html
> > > ...
> >
> > IMHO it's not right for the LSB to reference any pay-per-view standard
> > like ISO-C99.  ESPECIALLY as the first standard in the list!
> > Can we demote ISO-C99 to be further down in the list, or preferably,
> > delete it entirely from the list?
> 
> ISO-C99 is more recent than SUSv2 and SUSv3 is not released yet.

You're saying that the most recent standard (being the most up to date)
should be primary?  That sounds logical.
Does that mean than when SUSv3 is released, it'll be more recent than C99,
and will be the primary reference?

> It's unfortunate that C99 is not freely available but after all LSB
> describes C interfaces and therefore C99 is the right standard to
> use.

Don't quite follow you there.  SUSv3 describes C interfaces, too, doesn't it?
- Dan