Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the "const" qualifier
Message-ID: <1989Oct19.162849.20265@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <12239@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <11301@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3728@solo10.cs.vu.nl> <11320@smoke.BRL.MIL> <742@ccssrv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 89 16:28:49 GMT

In article <742@ccssrv.UUCP> perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) writes:
>+ Many of us think "noalias", with the problems in its specification
>+ straightened out, would have been a better solution, but
>+ it wasn't politically feasible to reintroduce such a qualifier.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>In other words, a _technically_ defective hack was put in the standard at
>the last minute, to satisfy someone's _political_ agenda.

Well, yes, but not in the way you meant it.  A technically defective hack
("noalias") was indeed put in the standard at the last minute (second public
review) to satisfy someone's (the number crunchers') semi-political agenda.
There was, quite legitimately and properly, a storm of protest from almost
everyone else in sight, including Dennis Ritchie.  Partly because the hack
really was technically defective, as written.  So it got hastily taken out
again.  Something along those lines might indeed have been the best solution,
but it was introduced far too late and without adequate prior thought.  If
I am not mistaken, it was also an invention of the committee rather than
proven prior art, which is a big no-no for a standards committee.

If the current situation is a botch, which I don't necessarily admit (I'm
of the anti-noalias faction), it is (a) one of the committee's own making,
and (b) too late to fix.
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu