From -1018122305565510091 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,40bc29384a77c552 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-08 13:08:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Edward Diener" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Messages facet and wide character filename Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:07:33 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: References: <3caa1ba0$0$9888$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net> <3cb07ec7$1@news1.homechoice.co.uk> <3cb19462$0$11204$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1018296458 mail2news:16695 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 12:49:12 PDT Lines: 81 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:10441 "P.J. Plauger" wrote in message news:3cb19462$0$11204$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net... > "Edward Diener" wrote in message > news:em7s8.24258$nt1.1974256@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > I have already done that but I still belive that the std::exception > > hierarchy should support wide character What() strings. > > > > > I agree about filenames though. > > > > Thanks, but I believe P.J.Plauger who answered my original post decided to > > bail out when I suggested that a change should be made to the C++ standard > > library in that regard. > > I beg your pardon? I said all that I felt needed saying. Don't recall bailing > out. You didn't respond to my message any further in this thread although your response, albeit a bit cryptic, suggested that you viewed the present solution as possibly inadequate. I viewed that as bailing out of any effort to consider a change to the C++ standard library in the way I originally mentioned. Of course you aren't under any necessity to consider what I suggested any further, and of course you can personally reject the idea entirely, but that is the way I saw it. > > > From both my posts, I gather that to ask for a > > change in the C++ standard, one has to make a Proposal on this NG somehow. > > That's one way. You can also attend meetings. > > > Of course in another previous post I suggested > > that a means to make a formal proposal be specified and I was told to do so > > on this NG. Unfortunately I do not know the magic words to accomplish this > > and was evidently relying on just reason and discussion to do so. > > Well, you can toss out ideas and hope that someone else will do the hard > work necessary to a) make a proposal, b) present it to the committee, c) deal > with the inevitable feedback, d) see it through to a successful vote, and > e) ensure that the normative change to the C++ Standard does what you want. I tossed out an idea. I can not attend meetings. Please specify the path by which I can make a formal proposal. > My major point in replying to your earlier postings was that getting to e) > from a) with a minimum of effort is not a Right Guaranteed to All Posters > in Any System That is Truly Democratic. Democracy takes work, and often > you get out of it only what you put into it. I am willing to make more than a minimum of effort, short of attending meetings which is both financially and time-wise impossible for me. If this fact keeps me, or anybody, from making a serious proposal, then I think that should be said outright by the commitee. If it does not, then I think the method by which a serious proposal is to be made to the C++ committee should be defined. I am not at odds with the committee. I appreciate very much the work that the comittee has and is doing to specify and promote an excellent language through their work. I do feel that the committee seems to be at odds with the C++ community members who want to contribute possible ideas and proposals but who simply can not attend committee meetings to promote and/or defend their proposals. Surely there must be a way for this situation to be resolved but if it can not be resolved, short of a proposee attending committee meetings, then the C++ committee should just say so and be done with it. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]