gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/25/88)
In article <1988Apr24.000653.2627@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >At risk of starting another flame war, if this is a problem, the function in >question is too complex and should be split up into more manageable pieces. FLAME ON! You have managed to denigrate the majority of code written by people at our installation! How dare you aver that there are "good" styles vs. "bad" ones?? Don't you know that any old code that seems to work is good enough??? People like you should keep their mouths shut, instead of casting aspersions on my organization!!!! FLAME OFF:-) (I thought I would save somebody the trouble.) Hi, Henry! Thanks for the draft comments. The official X3J11 response-to-second-public-review document is scheduled to be sent to CBEMA no later than 23-May-1988, and CBEMA will then mail copies to the correspondents. There will be a third public review of the draft proposed standard starting at approximately the same time. This time, X3J11 intends to limit comments in the third round to those pertaining to changes made to the proposed standard at the April 1988 meeting, plus any complaints from second-round commentors that their issues had not been adequately addressed. It is hoped that the contents of the final standard will be determined by the end of the August 1988 meeting. (This means that it is now too late to propose new inventions, unless you can discover a major problem that somehow has been overlooked thus far and persuade the committee that it has to be fixed.) Also, thanks to those who sent me electronic copies of their public comments. That really helped speed up the data entry aspect of the April meeting. There were 36 formal comment letters registered via CBEMA (hundreds of comments), plus several that somehow missed the registration date but that I carried to the meeting with me (that probably did not improve my popularity within the committee). By working overtime, using several computers on-site for data entry, X3J11 somehow managed to consider all comments and discuss issues that needed it in full committee. I wouldn't have thought it possible..
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/28/88)
> ... There were 36 formal comment letters registered via CBEMA...
An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners
and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official. I suppose it
is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet...
--
NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henrypurtill@faline.bellcore.com (Mark Purtill) (04/30/88)
In article <> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... There were 36 formal comment letters registered via CBEMA... > >An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners >and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official. I suppose it >is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet... Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) for the latest standard, without which they cannot make a formal complaint that has to be listened to (or at least so I read on the net). Moral: if X3J11/ANSI wanted broad participation in drafting the standard, they should have made the standard available in machine readable form, say in this group. ^.-.^ Mark Purtill ((")) purtill@math.mit.edu
shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni) (05/03/88)
> >Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) >for the latest standard, without which they cannot make a formal complaint >that has to be listened to (or at least so I read on the net). > >Moral: if X3J11/ANSI wanted broad participation in drafting the standard, >they should have made the standard available in machine readable form, I agree. It's rather unreasonable to have to shell out such a large sum in order to be able to send in a couple of comments. On the other hand (playing devil's advocate), maybe X3J11 didn't want to wade through 30,000 comments claiming that "noalias must go; this is non-negotiable" :-). To put it another way, put your money where your mouth is :-) :-) > say >in this group. Now that's considerably harder. Maybe if they had a copy for anonymous FTP, that would be OK (that way, *you*'re paying for the phone cost of transferring it), but as a posting, it's too huge. My paper copy of the standard proposal is 3/4" of double-sided copy... --shankar
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/03/88)
> >An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners > >and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official. I suppose it > >is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet... > > Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) > for the latest standard... If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends' pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that they aren't that desperately concerned. For some reason I suspect that X3J11 would be more interested in hearing from someone who was willing to live on soup and sandwiches for a couple of weeks because he really cared about C and was willing to make some sacrifices to be sure his voice was heard. People who actually *can't* afford $50 do have my sympathy; people who just can't be bothered commenting unless it's free don't. (Actually I think it was more like $75, but the principle stands.) (P.S. U of T did not pay for my copy of the draft.) -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) (05/03/88)
In article <1988Apr27.194653.1970@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... There were 36 formal comment letters registered via CBEMA... > > An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners > and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official. I suppose it > is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet... two things: I think the terms of getting and commenting to the ANSI spec make it difficult for most people; and I don't believe that presenting objections here in comp.lang.c constitutes "whining". I'm glad that somebody (Doug, et al) is paying attention to the discussions here. And I hope that the whiners do *not* keep quiet. -mm- -- Mark E. Mallett PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069 Home: 603 424 8129 uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM (...decvax!elrond!zinn!mem or ...sii!zinn!mem) BIX: mmallett
mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) (05/03/88)
From article <1988May2.212040.3274@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends' > pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that > they aren't that desperately concerned. I'm almost afraid to say this --- after several years of reading the the net I can count on one hand the number of times Henry has been wrong (and still have fingers left over) --- but I find this point of view a little bizarre. It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their employers to write a response. Is this a good criterion? I am grateful that a few very dedicated people, Henry among them, shelled out $75 to inject some common sense into the debate. But why have a policy that discourages just such people? -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-4252
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (05/04/88)
In article <5309@megaron.arizona.edu> mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes: >It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that >most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their >employers to write a response. Is this a good criterion? Like it or not, the ANSI standardization process assumes that the participants are mostly corporations. Standardization is a process by which the members of an industry work together to improve interoperability. True, this means that many people who are affected by standards are not part of the development process. Personally, I think that automobile standards probably affect most of us more than computer language standards (how many people have died because K&R C didn't have "volatile"?), yet I don't see many of you complaining because you weren't given the opportunity to discuss how bright the third brake light must be. Remember, the standards committee must write an individual response to each response letter, and this response must address every point raised. It is difficult enough to do this with the normal number of responses. It would probably be a full time job if everyone could get a copy for free and send in comments. Relating this to your poll tax analogy, if a politician had to personally tell each voter why he should be elected, the campaign would take many years. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com uunet!think!barmar
peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (05/05/88)
From my experiences with ANSI T1D1 (now T1S1), I would be very surprised if the ANSI C spec actually costs $60. _Global Engineering Documents_ (or whatever their name is) charges money for it - ANSI doesn't. If you want to go to the meetings and pick up the documents yourself, I don't think there is anything to keep you from reproducing them and giving them away, or even selling them. (Assuming GED doesn't have some contract preventing this.) From what I understand, the fee charged isn't bad when you consider that these people send someone to every ANSI meeting, and are supposed to keep track of all the changes pencilled in in the course of the meeting. Peter Desnoyers peter@athena.mit.edu
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/05/88)
In article <1988May2.212040.3274@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: | > >An interestingly small number, since it implies that a lot of the moaners | > >and whiners didn't bother making their complaints official. I suppose it | > >is too optimistic to hope that they will henceforth keep quiet... | > | > Perhaps they didn't care to pay $50 (or however much CBEMA was charging) | > for the latest standard... | | If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends' | pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that | they aren't that desperately concerned. For some reason I suspect that X3J11 Henry, I rarely disagree with you, but the version you can order always seems to be out of date. I would pay a fee for a current version, and an upgrade fee each time, if they would put the blasted info online so I can call a number (uucp or BBS) and get something current. Paying $50 for something worthless is really too costly, not only is there no positive value, but you wind up quoting things which are already changed/fixed. If I were going to make copies, I can make copies with a copy machine just as easily, so there is no reason to quote honesty as an argument. To postulate unofficial versions is dubious, too, since I can retypeset any one page now with a little effort, and make it look official. When I was on X3J11 the text was kept in [nt]roff format and could be accessed as soon as it was changed. I would trade the fancy typeset, bound, etc, old manual for a current version, even if I had to take it nroffed to a dot matrix printer. When I stopped going to meetings I wish I had kept observer status, just to get the mailings and stuff. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/05/88)
In article <5103@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes: >From what I understand, the fee >charged isn't bad when you consider that these people send someone to >every ANSI meeting, and are supposed to keep track of all the changes >pencilled in in the course of the meeting. What in the world are you talking about? The only person who necessarily keeps track of every change is the Redactor, who like the rest of us is a volunteer. The document that Global Engineering eventually sells is just a copy of the draft provided by the Redactor. Certainly X3J11 does not receive any income from the sale of documents by Global Engineering; the cost of attending meetings, reproduction and mailing, etc. is borne by the individual Committee members and the organizations they represent.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/05/88)
> ... I find this point of > view a little bizarre. It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that > most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their > employers to write a response... With the exception of the poorest students, I just don't think $75 is that formidable a barrier if one is really determined to comment. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/05/88)
In article <10717@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > Henry, I rarely disagree with you, but the version you can order >always seems to be out of date. Global does not distribute the internal working drafts of the proposed Standard X3.159-198x. What you can buy from them is the official public review draft (and corresponding Rationale document). That is what formal public comments are supposed to be based on.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/06/88)
> ... the version you can order always seems to be out of date...
Formal public-comment versions, like the one made available in February,
are required to be fully up to date. Interim drafts are made available
only on an informal for-your-information basis, as I understand it, and
are not meant as a reference for formal comments.
--
NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henrypeter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (05/06/88)
In article <7835@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <5103@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes: >>From what I understand, the fee >>charged isn't bad when you consider that these people send someone to >>every ANSI meeting, and are supposed to keep track of all the changes >>pencilled in in the course of the meeting. > >What in the world are you talking about? The only person who necessarily >keeps track of every change is the Redactor, who like the rest of us is a >volunteer. The document that Global Engineering eventually sells is just >a copy of the draft provided by the Redactor. Poor wording on my part. If Global wants to sell an accurate copy of a contribution, they have to keep track of the changes made in committee, the same way everyone else going to the meeting does. The draft standard is a bad example, because that is compiled by the redactor. More work is involved in keeping track of contributions than drafts, as many contributions may be reworded in committee, and I don't think anyone in ANSI is responsible for keeping track of the final versions. It's their effect on the draft that the redactor records. >Certainly X3J11 does not >receive any income from the sale of documents by Global Engineering; the >cost of attending meetings, reproduction and mailing, etc. is borne by the >individual Committee members and the organizations they represent. I know. I had to put up a few hundred dollars (later reimbursed by the company) for copying one Saturday night. (flight leaving Sunday - of course I didn't have the contributions done by Thursday for the company to copy) Peter Desnoyers peter@athena.mit.edu
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (05/06/88)
In article <1988May4.205251.549@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... I find this point of > > view a little bizarre. It seems to me that a poll tax ensures that > > most of the responses will come from people who are paid by their > > employers to write a response... > > With the exception of the poorest students, I just don't think $75 is that > formidable a barrier if one is really determined to comment. It wasn't enough to stop me getting _one_ copy of one version of the draft, but it was more than enough to stop me getting a copy of all the subsequent versions. (I didn't become an observing member, because the late '86 draft looked good enough for me to trust X3J11 to do a good job without me.)
kent@happym.UUCP (Kent Forschmiedt) (05/06/88)
[Someone whose name I deleted said, referring to the dpANS for X3J11:] > as a posting, it's too huge. My paper copy of the standard proposal >is 3/4" of double-sided copy... How valuable would it be to the net, compared, for example, to the 8 megabytes of postings last month in comp.binaries.ibm.pc? -- -- Kent Forschmiedt -- kent@happym.UUCP, tikal!camco!happym!kent Happy Man Corporation 206-282-9598
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/07/88)
In article <932@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
-It wasn't enough to stop me getting _one_ copy of one version of the draft,
-but it was more than enough to stop me getting a copy of all the subsequent
-versions.
There have been only two formal public review drafts so far.
A third (which we intend to be the last) should be ready in a month or so.bakken@hrsw2.UUCP (David E. Bakken) (05/10/88)
In article <1988May2.212040.3274@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > If they can't find $50 in their own pockets, or their own plus their friends' > pockets, or their organization's pockets, I really have to conclude that > [etc] They don't even have to come up with this whole amount. I've looked all over the draft (and the Oct 86 version) and can't find a copyright on it. So it seems one must just find someone who has a copy and pay for the copying costs (which might be in the neighborhood of $12). I don't know why it is not copyrighted - perhaps ANSI likes people to be able to freely reproduce its standards (and drafts thereof) but doesn't like to be in the document dissemenation business so it finds someone like Global to distribute the docs for a fee. --> DISCLAIMER <-- I'm not a lawyer, so consult one if you need to and don't blame me or my employer if you suffer liability because of using my statement (aren't litigious societies wonderful?). > (Actually I think it was more like $75, but the principle stands.) I'm pretty sure its $65 that Global distributes them for. -- Dave Bakken Boeing Commercial Airplanes (206) 277-2571 uw-beaver!apcisea!hrsw2!bakken Disclaimer: These are my own views, not those of my employers. Don't let them deter you from buying the 747 you've been saving hard for.