Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

"Zack Weinberg" <zackw@panix.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis said:
| > "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@panix.com> writes:
| >
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis said:
| > | > C++98 came before C99, so who diverged from whom?
| > |
| > | It doesn't matter.
| >
| > Yet, you're you were construeing it as an argument to support your position.
| 
| I'm only bringing up the divergence as an argument that at least one of the
| standards should be changed.

except that it was at best misleading.

| 
| Now my position _is_ that C++ should change, and for rationale look no further
| than Geoff's observation that implementing (A) or (B) rather than (C)
| semantics
| serves primarily to increase the set of programs that are ill-formed.  Since I
| don't think anyone but a conformance-test author would ever code something like
| Joseph's example, I think our users are best served by sticking to (C) and making
| the standards match.
| 
| > | > If you do feel so strongly about this, why don't you invest time in
| > | > sorting this with the committees?
| > |
| > | I am not in a position to do that.  Others on this list are.
| >
| > Please be more explicit.
| 
| Participating in the standards committees takes a great deal of time and
| money (for travel), neither of which I have right now.  I don't care to
| discuss my precise circumstances.

Good.  It seems to me like those who would be spending a great deal of
time and money are not sufficiently convinced by your arguments.
Consequently, it appears that they are not in position to explain your
strong opinion to the committees -- personally, I'm not convinced
enough to take committee scare resource (e.g. time) to explain them
that ZW strongly believes that the C++ spec has bug.  If you do have
people who would defend your position; please let us know.  Otherwise,
it would seem like you're agitating that argument for no useful purpose.

-- Gaby