Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!ames!elroy!mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!lmiller
From: lmiller@venera.isi.edu (Larry Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Noalias (was Re: unofficial X3J11 meeting notes)
Message-ID: <4361@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 17 Dec 87 17:23:05 GMT
References: <6829@brl-smoke.ARPA> <9753@mimsy.UUCP> <6830@brl-smoke.ARPA> <9770@mimsy.UUCP> <6833@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3297@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Reply-To: lmiller@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Larry Miller)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Lines: 17
Keywords: ANSI C standard

In article <3297@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> jss@hector (Jerry Schwarz) writes:
>In article <6833@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>>
>>		 Lots of discussion about noalias

Independent of the virtues or faults of noalias, is the issue of how
this construct could possibly have come up so late in the process of
creating a C standard.  Other issues that have been with C for a very
long time (such as expression rearrangement) created enormous
debate.  Could anyone have believed that an entirely new concept
would not also cause concern?  On this basis alone, it probably should 
not be part of the C standard.

Larry Miller				lmiller@venera.isi.edu (no uucp)
USC/ISI					213-822-1511
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA. 90292