Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:33971 comp.std.c:3948
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Rationale for my posting draft V7 C description
Message-ID: <2713@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 16 Nov 90 03:58:15 GMT
References: <2451.273eb16b@verifone.com>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 31

In article <2451.273eb16b@verifone.com> clifton_r@verifone.com writes:
+A couple of weeks ago, I posted a draft specification of Version 7 C, which
+met with a mixture of enthusiasm, some hostility, and indifference.  As I
+can't afford a heavy ego investment in this, I don't want to spend too long
+defending my actions.  However, as some criticisms seemed to be based on a
+misconception of my goals, I would like to clarify my intentions.
+
...
+I don't intend to define a standard; I am sorry it appeared that way.  I draw
+a distinction between a standard and a spec...

That's just a smokescreen.  A cow-patty by any other name would smell the
same.

This group is for discussing the use of (and the rules of) ANSI C.  If you
sense some hostility, it is probably because the people who read and write
this group mostly want to see people starting using (and conforming to)
the One and Only approved standard for the language C.

Talking about non-conforming (decrepit and anachronistic) implementations
of the C language does not help to promote that goal.  Proposing
ad-hoc standards for non-conforming (pre-ANSI) implementations actively
pushes people away from that goal.

Perhaps you need a group of your own called comp.lang.anachronistic-c.

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.