Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
Message-ID: <14008@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 4 Oct 90 08:01:55 GMT
References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990Oct3.184359.2348@sq.sq.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 24

In article <1990Oct3.184359.2348@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>My question is whether rulings like this are valid for all time
>(until the Standard is revised, that is) or whether they can be
>reversed at a later meeting, if someone submits, say, a clearer
>case for one point of view than was presented originally.

So far as I have heard, there is nothing to prohibit somebody from
sending in a request for interpretation that is similar to a previous
one.  However, unless you make a very convincing case for a change
in interpretation, the committee would probably simply repeat their
earlier decision (which, after all, did result from substantial
discussion and debate before the vote was taken).  I can give the
argument for the majority position for this particular issue, if
you want to hear it; I was the one who presented the issue before
the committee (I still have the multi-colored viewfoil for it).

Note that X3J11 interpretation rulings are, strictly speaking, not
part of the official standard.  However, since some of them, this
one included, were in response to requests for clarification from
the editor of the "normative addendum" for the International
Standard, there IS a chance that such rulings might be incorporated
into the ISO C standard (via the normative addendum, not for the
initial standard, which last I heard is still technically identical
to the ANSI standard).