Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!rna!kc
From: kc@rna.UUCP (Kaare Christian)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C Review
Message-ID: <591@rna.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Jan-87 23:59:18 EST
Article-I.D.: rna.591
Posted: Mon Jan 19 23:59:18 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Jan-87 20:11:25 EST
References: <2313@brl-adm.ARPA> <175400001@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Rockefeller Neurobiology
Lines: 19

I agree with all of your respondents that the given comments on C are
pretty far out of line, especially given your intent to write a
non-intro type C book. Although I disagree with statements such as
``case is rarely used'' you might find it useful to try to understand
what aspect of your manuscript led the reviewer to make such outlandish
statements. Although most would disagree with the reviewer's specific
comments, they may be his/her best effort at expressing valid objections.
For example your presentation of the comma oprator, which is often used
obscurely, may have lacked inadequate warnings about order of evaluation
difficulties. Or your discussion of typedef may have lacked motivation.
The reviewer just *might* be incoherently giving you some good advice.

In my experience many reviewers (in many fields) have trouble
explaining what they don't like about something. Only the very best
reviewers are able to explain their objections adequately.

Kaare Christian cmcl2!rna!kc

(On the other hand, the reviewer may be completely incompetent.)