Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Packing, Ordering, and Rearranging Message-ID: <1990Oct6.133425.12773@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 6 Oct 90 13:34:25 GMT References: <57898@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Oct3.061708.10391@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Oct5.174210.28737@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 18 henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>... The convenience of compiler writers should not >>be an issue. Whether something is possible at all, or only >>possible with an NP complete computation, is admissible as an >>argument, but not the compiler writer's mere convenience, where >>that is gained at the expense of the compiler user. > >This fine idealistic viewpoint ignores the realities of the standards >world. A standard is useful only if it is widely accepted. It cannot >become widely accepted without support from compiler writers. Trying >to ram things down the compiler writers' throats with standards simply >does not work; all it does is eliminate the usefulness of the standard. I offer the Ada language as an absolute counterexample to your argument. Kent, the man from xanth.