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

["Zack Weinberg" <zackw at panix dot com>]

Gabriel Dos Reis said:
[...]
> 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.

Based on their statements elsewhere in this thread, I believe Joe Buck and
Geoff Keating share my opinions.  I am so far the only person to have said out
loud that this should be addressed by changing the C++ standard, but I don't
think I am the only one to consider it.

Also: why do you care so much about this corner case?  I only care from the
implementation perspective, since I doubt it matters to any real software that
GCC might compile.  I'm pointing out an approach to the problem which would
avoid having to change GCC at all, saving someone a great deal of coding
effort.  You are arguing strongly for not changing this one tiny piece of the
standard, and I don't understand why.

zw