New US Rep to ISO C

[T. William Wells]

In article <4623 at freja.diku.dk> keld at freja.diku.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) writes:
: The technical problems with the proposal seems to be solvable,
: according to the formal reply on the third public review
: by X3J11 itself. At the Seattle meeting a problem was arisen
: with A[], which already was described in the proposal paper
: (notation A!; for A[]; ) and another problem with ambiguity
: with the non-operator was also proposed solved by me by
: parenthenses, that is higher precedence for the postfix !-operator.

That something can be done is not sufficient reason to do it.

What technical advantage would be had by those proposals? Don't
answer with esthetic arguments; no one is likely to take them
seriously. I know I won't.

: Another thing that X3J11 let down was to follow the guidelines
: for syncronisation of ANSI/ISO standardisation, which has been
: proposed by ANSI itself and to the best of my knowledge been
: approved by ISO SC22. The guidelines would mean that the ANSI C
: standard would be delayed till ISO had got a DP successfully
: thru the international ballot.

If there was any real delay in the standard, for what is essentially
a bureaucratic reason, zillions of people would have screamed, me
among them. I doubt that strict conformance to those guidelines is a
sufficient reason to inconvenience the rest of the C world.

---
Bill                            { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill