Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:276 comp.lang.c:11944 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Commentary for third public review of X3J11 C Message-ID: <8358@smoke.ARPA> Date: 19 Aug 88 14:43:23 GMT References: <64919@sun.uucp> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 18 In article <64919@sun.uucp> dgh%dgh@Sun.COM (David Hough) writes: >I comment in detail upon the following aspects of the proposed standard... One very important thing to be aware of is that X3J11 intends to get the proposed standard wrapped up (formally adopted) as soon as possible. When the third-round comments are reviewed at the September meeting, it is highly likely that all suggestions for substantive changes to the proposed standard will be rejected unless they remedy a proven serious deficiency. The reason is that any non-editorial change would necessitate yet another public review, therefore delay in publishing the official standard. This process could go on forever, but there is a strong desire to adopt a "good enough" standard in a timely fashion rather than working toward a "perfect" standard that is too late to matter. Many of us feel that the current draft is "good enough", perhaps modulo editorial nits. I don't mean to discourage comments on the draft; however, you should be advised that you'll need some extremely strong arguments for making any substantive changes. Examples showing that the current draft is badly broken would help.