lawsuit

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <3749 at umiami.miami.edu> SLORES at umiami.miami.edu (Stanislaw L. Olejniczak) writes:
>The disagreement, if I recal correctly,, also involves Intel (me thinks)
>because the new stadard (as well as I know at the moment) does not include
>far pointers required for the 80*86 chips architecture.  I think I recall
>this correctly, but it has been several months since I read it.

It's hard to believe this rumor, because the *86 architecture was
probably to one of interest to more X3J11 committee members than any
other, yet there was almost no committee support for adding "near"
and "far" to the C language.  They are certainly not necessary for
standard-conforming C implementation on *86 architectures.  Further,
they can be provided by *86 C implementors in the form "__near" and
"__far" even in a standard-conforming implementation, if they are
really thought to be important to that particular market subsegment.

On the other hand, truth and logic may have little connection with
motivations for lawsuits.  Certainly lawyers don't feel bound by them.

If nobody can cite a reference for the supposed lawsuit, I think we
should assume there isn't one.  I would have expected to hear about
it if it were real..