[cpp-threads] Editorial comments on the straw man

[Nick Maclaren]

"Nelson, Clark" <clark.nelson at intel.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree that the _term_ "sequence point" is completely broken; it's
> the _concept_ and the _usage_ of the term/concept (most especially, all
> references to "the next" or "the previous" sequence point) that are
> wrong. On that I think we agree.

Yes.  But, given that it doesn't define a sequence, let alone a point
in one, I am not a great believer in the term, either :-)

> In any case, your opinion appears to be that the confusion about
> "sequence point" is so intense that it has poisoned the word "sequence"
> past redemption. ...

That's not quite it.  Having been involved in many unproductive debates
on the One True Meaning of C's sequence point model, my view is that
rattling those cages is not a clever thing to do.  If it were possible
to ensure that historical assumptions - and entrenched positions - could
be kept out of it, I wouldn't be so happy.

> But the selection of the term is an editorial question, ...

Yes, indeed.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:  nmm1 at cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679