![NEN/NL8-239 n/a 7.29.1 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 te Previously, N2878 was held up because it needed approval from the Austin Group. During the meeting the paper was postponed and corrections were asked for, F.T. stated that the Austin Group approves the changes and direction. This paper is a tiny fix that is about as close to editorial as possible, changes the paper to match existing practice, and allows for more implementation flexibility. Add the wording of N2878 (or its successor revision) to the C Standard. Paragraph 4 should have the following text added: nsec_t which is an implementation-defined integer type capable of representing the range [0, 999999999]; and paragraph 5 should have the following change done for the timespec structure: long tv_nsec; // nanoseconds – [0, 999999999] nsec_t tv_nsec; // nanoseconds -- [0, 999999999] Accepted with comment: The proposed wording from N 3066 will be adopted instead of the proposed wording here. NEN/NL8-239 n/a 7.29.1 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 te Previously, N2878 was held up because it needed approval from the Austin Group. During the meeting the paper was postponed and corrections were asked for, F.T. stated that the Austin Group approves the changes and direction. This paper is a tiny fix that is about as close to editorial as possible, changes the paper to match existing practice, and allows for more implementation flexibility. Add the wording of N2878 (or its successor revision) to the C Standard. Paragraph 4 should have the following text added: nsec_t which is an implementation-defined integer type capable of representing the range [0, 999999999]; and paragraph 5 should have the following change done for the timespec structure: long tv_nsec; // nanoseconds – [0, 999999999] nsec_t tv_nsec; // nanoseconds -- [0, 999999999] Accepted with comment: The proposed wording from N 3066 will be adopted instead of the proposed wording here.](https://staging.cohostcdn.org/attachment/c151ace4-94d5-4211-8c42-3ca4b65e833b/a.png?width=675&dpr=1)
to end up in C23, as sponsored by @ThePhD
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3091.doc (yes it's a .doc; standards processes for children.)

Dazed and confused, but trying to continue 🇵🇱/🏴/🇷🇺 ⚧ they
Maintains homie/hoe stasis. Store horizontally when not in use. Contains sulfites.
![NEN/NL8-239 n/a 7.29.1 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 te Previously, N2878 was held up because it needed approval from the Austin Group. During the meeting the paper was postponed and corrections were asked for, F.T. stated that the Austin Group approves the changes and direction. This paper is a tiny fix that is about as close to editorial as possible, changes the paper to match existing practice, and allows for more implementation flexibility. Add the wording of N2878 (or its successor revision) to the C Standard. Paragraph 4 should have the following text added: nsec_t which is an implementation-defined integer type capable of representing the range [0, 999999999]; and paragraph 5 should have the following change done for the timespec structure: long tv_nsec; // nanoseconds – [0, 999999999] nsec_t tv_nsec; // nanoseconds -- [0, 999999999] Accepted with comment: The proposed wording from N 3066 will be adopted instead of the proposed wording here. NEN/NL8-239 n/a 7.29.1 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 te Previously, N2878 was held up because it needed approval from the Austin Group. During the meeting the paper was postponed and corrections were asked for, F.T. stated that the Austin Group approves the changes and direction. This paper is a tiny fix that is about as close to editorial as possible, changes the paper to match existing practice, and allows for more implementation flexibility. Add the wording of N2878 (or its successor revision) to the C Standard. Paragraph 4 should have the following text added: nsec_t which is an implementation-defined integer type capable of representing the range [0, 999999999]; and paragraph 5 should have the following change done for the timespec structure: long tv_nsec; // nanoseconds – [0, 999999999] nsec_t tv_nsec; // nanoseconds -- [0, 999999999] Accepted with comment: The proposed wording from N 3066 will be adopted instead of the proposed wording here.](https://staging.cohostcdn.org/attachment/c151ace4-94d5-4211-8c42-3ca4b65e833b/a.png?width=675&dpr=1)
to end up in C23, as sponsored by @ThePhD
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3091.doc (yes it's a .doc; standards processes for children.)