Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!umd5!brl-adm!adm!lcc.marks@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
From: lcc.marks@SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Mark Seecof)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: \"major adjustments\" in ANS C
Message-ID: <11179@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 8 Jan 88 11:32:18 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 44


Doug Gwyn, replying to another, writes:

> 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.

If the Committee would refrain from making novel adjustments of its
own AFTER the first review period (I am particularly concerned by the
proposed change to force "fortran-style" parentheses interpretation,
but "noalias" may be a better example (though I probably won't object
to *it* ;-)) then the rest of us wouldn't be in the position of
submitting comments on proposed changes during the second-review-
period that should have been handled in the first period.

Changes in the second draft should address deficiencies in the
first.  Proposed changes from the previous standard (in this case
K&R) should be in the first draft, so that people can comment on
them early.

The informal information we have suggests that the parentheses
change results from the Committee feeling pressured by a threat
from ISO not to adopt the ANS standard as an ISO standard unless
the change was made.  I wish the Committee would remember that
their task is to create an American National Standard, not an
international standard.  If ISO, due to inferior comprehension
of the issues involved, can't stand the K&R parentheses rule
they can just make a little change in the ANS standard and
adopt that.  To phrase it another way... the ANSI Committee should
do things the right way even if others want to do things the wrong
way.  This kind of blackmail (do it my way or I won't adopt your
standard) should be given exactly the respect it deserves--none.

The compiler manufacturers will adhere to the better (hopefully
ANS) standard anyway, so there's no danger involved.  Just for
fun, what d'you suppose the Committee would do if CCITT applied
pressure the opposite way?  (I know CCITT doesn't do programming
languages, but they often interact with other ANSI committees,
and routinely adopt standards incompatible with ISO's; pretty
funny--two incompatible official international standards!)


Mark Seecof