Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!utah-cs!donn From: donn@utah-cs.UUCP (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Re: ANSI proposal for preprocessor strings Message-ID: <3261@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 07:35:30 EST Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3261 Posted: Tue Mar 26 07:35:30 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Mar-85 14:19:49 EST References: <8436@brl-tgr.ARPA> <454@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <5152@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: University of Utah CS Dept Lines: 45 I agree with Henry that this issue is thoroughly beaten to death, but I am still so irritated and exasperated by his posting that I felt some small obligation to follow it up. Rather than repeat the points I made in my previous article (or amend the text in the response where I was quoted out of context) I will simply reprint an old article of Henry's and let the net speculate as to why Henry's attitude about supporting ugly extensions to C seems to differ so wildly from one article to the next. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 85 20:02:38 CST (Wed) From: cbosgd!ihnp4!utzoo!henry Subject: union initialization and paper proposals To: ihnp4!cbosgd!std-c I think the people responding to Larry Rosler's comments on union initialization are missing an important point. As far as I know, nobody contends that the first-member rule for union initialization is beautiful. The key point is: there is real live experience with this rule, with a real compiler and real customers. In other words, it is known to work in practice, not just theory. This is of considerable importance when something is to be enshrined in a standard. I'm not aware of comparable real-life use of any of the various other proposals. Careful contemplation is *not* the same thing. Standards committees have good reason for taking field-proven proposals much more seriously than untried ones. Avoiding subtle disasters is more important, for a standard, than maximizing beauty. This is not to say that I like first-member union initialization. Personally, I think it should have been "done right" (although I'm not sure just how to do that) or ignored. If I'd been a committee member, in the absence of field-proven "done right" solutions, I think I'd have voted for ignoring the whole issue. Oh well. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Need I say that I agree completely with Henry's reasoning in this article? I promise not to drag this out any further, Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn