Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Postings in comp.std.c and comp.lang.c
Message-ID: <11798@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 12 Dec 89 03:13:33 GMT
References: <7130@ficc.uu.net> <11363@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1120.2583ef20@csc.anu.oz>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <1120.2583ef20@csc.anu.oz>, bdm659@csc.anu.oz writes:
> I believe my interpretation is much closer to the actual meanings of the
> words than yours is.  However, it breaks the most common usage of malloc/free
> and so probably doesn't correspond to the committee's intention.

Instead of arguing about this here, how about (as I suggested before)
submitting to X3 a request for interpretation of the Standard on this
point.  While officially the resulting response would not affect the
published Standard, practically it would be of great value in making
the intention of the Standard clearer.

As I've stated before, trying to act as an automaton in reading and
interpreting the wording of the Standard is unreasonable.  And some
degree of interpretation is inevitable.  I certainly do not interpret
the Standard's requirements in this matter the same as Brendan.  But
I cannot guarantee that my interpretation agrees with X3J11's intent,
no matter how sure I am that it does; thus an official ruling should
be requested if you really think this is a practical problem.