Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!bellcore!faline!ulysses!allegra!alice!dmr
From: dmr@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: noalias
Message-ID: <7552@alice.UUCP>
Date: 19 Dec 87 10:18:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 23

Larry Miller and others are correct in pointing out that the deepest
sin of X3J11 was to allow themselves to make controversial changes
in what was supposed to be the final draft (save for editorial polishing).
The plan was to accept the second round of public comments starting
in January, deal with them in April, and sail home in August.
They will have a harder time now;  further substantive changes
will probably require more public comment.

I will save detailed discussion until the words actually describing
"noalias" are written (they aren't yet) and the public comment window
opens; the committee should expect a letter considerably less
friendly than the last one I wrote.   "noalias" is a dreadful mistake.
I believe it is bad language design; worse, the committee is
in effect blackmailing those who agree with this position,
because its introduction is so hard to retract now.

I say "mistake" and "in effect blackmailing" with care.  It was not
a plot, but a compromise, that introduced the keyword.  From the outside,
though, its introduction (along with other changes) presents a nasty
choice to people who deeply wish the language standard to be both
good and timely.  Why could not they have left well enough alone?

	Dennis Ritchie