standards development process

[Rick Schubert]

In article <10511 at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
+In article <1509 at se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM> rns at se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM (Rick Schubert) writes:
++In article <10314 at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
+++ ...
+++Actually, as long as noalias was removed I would be content (but not
+++overjoyed) to use ANSI-C.  
++
++When and if there is an ANSI C Standard that contains "noalias", feel
++free to write programs that do not contain the token "noalias".
+
+Certainly, but I will have to deal with code that I did not
+write that contains "noalias".  After all, most of a programmers
+work is in maintenance not development.

I was responding to your claim that you would use ANSI C if it didn't
contain "noalias" but you would not use it if it did; I did and do maintain
that if the presence of "noalias" was the determining factor for you, that
you could program in ANSI C--, which would be ANSI C - "noalias".  I think
that dealing with other programmers' code containing "noalias" confuses the
issue.  When you say that you will refuse to use ANSI C if it contains
"noalias", what do you plan to do?  Use existing C compilers? or use another
language?  That wouldn't address the issue of what you do with other people's
ANSI C programs.  Do you avoid them altogether?  I guess so, if you do not
plan on using ANSI C.  But if you're going to avoid them altogether, you
still have an independent choice to make for your own programs.  And for
this choice I say: "feel free to write programs that do not contain the
token 'noalias'."

+Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems and Ohio State University

Rick Schubert (rns at se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM)