🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4566@saturn.ucsc.edu> joseph@chromo.ucsc.edu (Joseph Reger) writes:
>The draft may not be 'badly broken' but is missing out on the opportunity
>to make C a convenient language for numerical computing as well...

Well, remember two things.  First, that there was opportunity for input
along these lines earlier, and little was received; it is now much too late
for major changes.  Second, that X3J11's mission was to standardize an
existing language, not to invent a new one; they did make some small steps
toward making C friendlier for numerical work, and that is probably about
all one should expect from a standards committee.

If you really want to see C improved as a language for numerical computing,
the first thing to do is to scream at your compiler supplier until he/she/it
does some of the things you want.  Then, when the time rolls around for the
next revision of the C standard, you can propose changes based on *actual
experience*.  This will carry a lot more weight than untried inventions.
Given the time lags involved in all this, if you are serious about it, the
time to start haranguing your supplier is *now*.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu