Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mcnc!xanth!kent
From: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 'C' Standards
Message-ID: <2514@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Sep-87 23:17:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.2514
Posted: Tue Sep 22 23:17:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 00:46:33 EDT
References: <166@qetzal.UUCP> <157@hobbes.UUCP> <875@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 28
Keywords: consistency

In article <6447@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <2471@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>>I must be missing something here.
>
>As usual.  What you missed this time is the distinction between
>"software developers" (which I referred to) and implementors of
>ANSI C.  The latter will occasionally have to work hard in order
>to make life simpler for the former.  But then, this point is
>probably too subtle for someone who advocates changing a widely-
>used language simply to conform to some idealized model in the
>course of standardizing it.


Mr. Gwyn,

If you are unable to keep a civil tongue in your head, I suggest in
the strongest terms that you have yourself replaced as a spokesperson
in this forum for ANSI and X3J11.  Your continued, intemperate and ad
hominem attacks on me and other net correspondents, to the neglect of
answering the valid technical issues raised here, are a disgrace.

You continue to espouse embedding hardware misfeatures into the C
language standard.  Granted, the implementors of the resulting C
compilers will be forced to take these abominations into account, but
SO WILL EVERY C PROGRAMMER FOR GENERATIONS TO COME (those system
developers you distinguish against).

Kent, the (out of patience) man from xanth.