Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!longway!std-unix
From: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Safe to use *_t typedefs?
Message-ID: <141@longway.TIC.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 88 19:38:24 GMT
References: <140@longway.TIC.COM> <1086@bentley.UUCP>
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Lines: 27
Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)

Doug Gwyn writes:
>Since it appears that 75% of the balloters have now voted yea
>on draft 1003.1, we are in danger of getting a standard that
>does not solve these fundamental portability problems.

Just to clarify somewhat the rather confusing IEEE balloting
procedure currently going on for 1003.1:

1003.1 is not a standard yet.  75% of the balloting quorum returned
ballots during the initial thirty day period, and 75% of those were
positive, allowing a ballot resolution period, which was set at ten
days.  There are claims that 77% positive ballots were received during
that resolution period.  But the period was too short for many people
to respond, and there were other problems (all three of Institutional
Representatives, from USENIX, /usr/group, and X/OPEN, as well as
others, sent letters to the IEEE Standards Board pointing this out).
There will be another resolution period, probably in April.

At this point if you haven't already balloted, you can't.  But there's
still some time for improvements in 1003.1, and some problems may have
been resolved at the 1003 meeting last week in D.C.

The IEEE Standards Review Committee accepted 1003.1 as a conditional
standard at their last meeting, a week or so ago.  I don't know what
that means, but I do know it does not mean that 1003.1 is a standard yet.

Volume-Number: Volume 13, Number 28