Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: (So-Called) ANSI C
Message-ID: <6965@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 7 Jan 88 01:24:22 GMT
References: <11135@brl-adm.ARPA>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 22

In article <11135@brl-adm.ARPA> dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) writes:
>Oh, so if I can afford a copy of the draft then I'm likely to care and
>make thoughtful comments, otherwise I'm dirt?

I would rather put it:  If you don't care enough to invest $60 to obtain
accurate information before you ask a committee to spend lots of their
time and energy listening to you, then why should you be taken seriously?

>That doesn't mean that I should
>blindly accept their decisions just to make their job easier.

I don't think anyone has suggested that you should.
However, you shouldn't blindly challenge their decisions, either.

>My point is that it behooves the entire C community to scrutinize the
>proposed standard as closely as possible before it becomes a standard.
>Now is the time to make adjustments...

Actually, the time for major adjustments was over a year ago;
several years ago if you include participating on the committee
as a way to have even more influence on the process.
Now is the time to repair serious deficiencies, only.