Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!dayton!viper!john
From: john@viper.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C & fp (really parens)
Message-ID: <833@viper.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Apr-87 15:01:09 EST
Article-I.D.: viper.833
Posted: Mon Apr 13 15:01:09 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Apr-87 03:38:45 EST
References: <6800@brl-adm.ARPA> <5739@brl-smoke.ARPA> <814@viper.UUCP> <5746@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley)
Organization: DynaSoft Systems
Lines: 58

In article <5746@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
 >In article <814@viper.UUCP> john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley) writes:
 >>  I would be very interested in hearing what the process would be for
 >>me to make an official proposal to the committee.  I'm tired of taking
 >>so much time talking to people who agree with me but have little or no
 >>say in the matter.  I want to make sure the unary plus never gets into
 >>the final version of the standard.  It will cause more problems than
 >>it's worth and makes a major point of the language into a total kludge.
 >
 >Sigh.  You're totally wrong about this.  I've tried to correct the
 >misimpressions people seem to have about the significance of () in C,
 >which is simply to alter expression parsing (override default operator
 >associativity and precedence), and to explain that the addition of
 >unary + to the language has no effect unless you use it, in which case
 >it can be used to obtain additional functionality that people seem to
 >be clamoring for WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE BEFORE.  I get the feeling that
 >you're not listening..
 >

  Oh, we're listening Doug...  You're the one who dosen't seem to get the
point.  The point is, we don't like the construct X3J11 has come up with.
Parens are intuative.  They fall into the wyciwyg (What you C is what you
get) system of programming.  What we want also falls into the category of
"WAS NOT POSSIBLE BEFORE".  What makes the method you've come up with
somehow sacred and imutable?  I KNOW X3J11 has put -a-lot- of time and
effort into this and it may be that they have invested too much time
and "emotional effort" to even consider an alternative which goes against
their ideas even if it -might- be a better idea.  I don't think that
should stop me from at least trying to get the point across... Do you?

 >Keep in mind that all this has been discussed
 >before and decided on; to get it changed you will have to be quite
 >convincing.  (If you don't understand how anyone could rationally
 >disagree with your "obvious" ideas, then don't bother to send in a
 >comment, since in that case you're not likely to accomplish anything
 >beyond wasting both your and the committee's time.)
 >

(chuckle)  Well put.  Have no fear.  If I can't make up an argument
that's at least halfway convincing the committe will never waste a
moment of time on the ideas I intend to present.  I, for one, have
no desire to "waste" anyones time, including my own...

 >Send your comments to the address that accompanied the public review
 >document that you presumably got through Global Engineering.  (If you
 >don't have a copy, get it, because it's hard to take comments very
 >seriously when they aren't based on what was actually proposed.)
 >

  By all means I intend to aquire a copy.  I's quite possible that all
this may be a misunderstanding that will be cleared up by reading "the
word of X3J11".  How about providing the address and telling me how
much money I need to send so I can start...?

--- 
John Stanley (john@viper.UUCP)
Software Consultant - DynaSoft Systems
UUCP: ...{amdahl,ihnp4,rutgers}!{meccts,dayton}!viper!john