Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!jss
From: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: In defense of scanf() (Re: Re^2: scanf(..))
Message-ID: <11718@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 28 Jun 89 04:54:43 GMT
References: <225800176@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <11831@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <824@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <1134@vsi.COM> <10397@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27

In article <10397@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes:

[Some discussion of design flaws in "strtok" and "gets" omitted]

>
>Funny, existing practices that consisted of documented bugs really
>have been standardized.  Only existing practices that consisted of
>quasi-documented but necessary features have been omitted from the
>standardization.
>

I strongly object to the tone of the above paragraph.  It suggests
(without coming right out and saying it) that the deliberations of
the ANSI C committee were subject to some systematic effect that
damaged the design of ANSI C without suggesting what that influence
was?  Was it incompetence, improper goals, maliciousness, greed,
haste, or something else? Since no specific charges are made they
can't be refuted.

Probably nobody agrees with all the decisions made by the committee.
(I happen to agree with it on "strtok" and disagree on "gets", but
that isn't particularly relevant.)

For the record, I never served on the committee although I know some
of the people who have.

Jerry Schwarz