🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14906@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> In article <18701:Jan1916:03:2691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >Why can't people get together here and discuss how (and if) to propose
> >// to ANSI for the next revision of the standard?
> Several points:
> I understand that there is another newsgroup for such discussions.

Ah, so you're saying that before ANSI C was approved, it was a future
language, and hence discussions of it should have taken place on Peter's
cfutures mailing list (now alt.lang.cfutures). As should all discussions
of C++, which is one direction of the future of C. Right?

> People proposing // seem unaware that this has already been considered
> and rejected for the C standard.  No arguments have been made that
> would justify reopening the issue.

Really? I can believe that the committee rejected // because it hasn't
been used too much in implementations. But that's changing. The argument
about commenting out an already partially commented-out section of code
shows that // has at least one objective advantage which even cynics
like you can't dispute.

> It will be several years before the ANSI C committee will be soliciting
> public comment for the next revision of the C standard.  Thus this
> newsgroup is not presently a useful place for such discussions.

Ah. So when is the magic deadline for making this group useful again?
And since when is ``standard'' synonymous with ``ANSI''? Why can't we
chat about IBM Standard C here if we want?

---Dan