Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Constant expressions
Message-ID: <5434@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 6-Dec-86 11:42:44 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5434
Posted: Sat Dec  6 11:42:44 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Dec-86 22:11:01 EST
References: <1252@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <6426@alice.uUCp> <1288@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 17

In article <1288@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@cit-vax.UUCP (Jon Leech) writes:
>	In my April 30, 1985 copy of the draft, Section C.4 ``Constant
>Expressions'' says 
> ...
>in initializers. What a stupid restriction. Time to comment to ANSI.

This newsgroup is really incredible!  First of all, if you're going
to comment on the draft C standard, comment on the draft C standard
(that is, the one released for public review and comment), not on an
earlier working draft.  Secondly, the draft proposed standard allows
casts of arithmetic types to integral types in all constant-expressions
except those tested in preprocessing conditional-inclusion directives.
This is explained in the paragraph immediately preceding the one quoted.

And people wonder why their comments "haven't been addressed"!

(Reminder: I'm not an official spokesman for X3J11.)