noalias (was: Re: the "const" qualifier)

[Henry Spencer]

In article <11351 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>... a technically defective (but repairable) feature
>was REMOVED at the last minute...

After being added at the next-to-last minute.  As for its repairability,
it's not at all clear to me that this was possible.  The version in the
second-public-review draft was, I'm told, already the result of several
major revisions.  It still didn't work properly.  It sure looked to me --
and I said so in my submission to the committee -- as if the whole issue
simply wasn't well enough understood for a solution to be invented with 
any confidence that it was viable.  (When repeated revisions persistently
fail to work, the gods are probably trying to tell you something.)  That
is, it's a research topic, not something to be hastily jammed into an
important standard.

>It was certainly within X3J11's mandate to invent solutions -- when
>necessary to remedy clearly perceived deficiencies...

However, it is wise to do so only (a) where matters are well understood,
and (b) early in the standards process, so there is time for second
thoughts.  X3J11 blew it on both of these with noalias.

It also seems to me that the areas where X3J11 did invent solutions have
attracted a disproportionate share of public criticism, often for good
reason.

>If you know some better way to draft such a standard, more power to you.
>We did the best we could, and I think our consciences are clear.

"Success excuses many things."  Unless the wording revisions since the
third public review have botched something -- I'd be a bit happier if
I didn't get the impression that considerable further work was done on what
was supposed to be a finished product -- the end product is reasonably good.
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry at zoo.toronto.edu