[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meissner) wrote on 04.11.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:24:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too
> > > easy to just use the gcc syntax]
> >
> > One of the big problems in C99 was that there was nobody on the committee
> > who really understood gcc well, so the committee had problems using gcc
> > solutions given that nobody would be able to really describe them.
>
> Or the GCC syntax was too limited to do all of what the committee wanted.
Well, what I wrote was a paraphrase from what committee members said in
comp.std.c.
> > And the reason no such expert was there was that the FSF didn't send
> > anyone, because they seem to think standards tend to ignore what they want
> > to do.
>
> Actually, RMS had quite a lot of influence on the original standard, even
> though he didn't attend the meetings. His replies to the public comment
> period were fairly long and real insightful. Even if some of his issues
> were voted down, they were discussed over quite a few meetings.
And what I wrote here was another paraphrase - from memory - of what a gcc
guy said on the same group.
Deja will show the context, in case that's not beyond its current event
horizon.
MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
