proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

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

| Joseph S. Myers said:
| > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Zack Weinberg wrote:
| >> I am with Joe Buck in the opinion that even a 1% performance penalty for
| >> implementing (A) [or (B)] would be too much -- I suggest this be fixed by
| >> convincing the C++ committee to allow (C) and not just by phase 1
| >> transformations, thus allowing the existing implementation to conform.
| >
| > I don't think solutions starting with convincing the committee to fix a
| > working part of the standard are generally that practical!
| 
| When the standard is arguably buggy -- if nothing else, it diverges from C

C++98 came before C99, so who diverged from whom?
If you do feel so strongly about this, why don't you invest time in
sorting this with the committees?

-- Gaby