On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Niall Douglas via SG16
<sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 07/12/2020 22:56, Tom Honermann via SG16 wrote:
>
> > IBM does maintain representation in WG21 (and I thought in WG14 as
> > well). There are also ports of Clang to EBCDIC systems now as well.
>
> They have robust representation on WG14. Indeed, they are the primary
> cause for saying no to any proposed insubstantial change. This is very
> frustrating to anyone proposing anything non-trivial, but the IBM rep is
> a very good engineer, very technically able, and he has a strong opinion
> that C ought to not change by much, ever.
>
> IBM remains keen on EBCDIC, and they defend it on WG14 zealously. I'd
> say everybody else on WG14 would prefer if it went away, but in the end
> if a particular implementor really wants to support it, there aren't
> good reasons for removing it.

I'm not certain if you intended for your message to come across in
such a negative way, but hopefully you recognize that WG14 and WG21
approach changes to their respective standards differently and that's
not because of any one member or company. For instance, WG14 places a
high value on existing conforming code and even lists keeping such
code working as an explicit part of the C charter (WG14 N2611).
Hopefully the new study group on C and C++ compatibility can help you
better understand these sorts of differences and how to avoid making
proposals to WG14 which lead to results that frustrate you, but I
don't think your post above was accurate or constructive.

~Aaron

>
> Niall
> --
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16