From 8690284672258485913
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,b2ee37ea6b4e52ab
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
From: hsutter@peerdirect.com (Herb Sutter)
Subject: Re: ISO vs ANSI C++
Date: 1999/07/11
Message-ID: <3788dece.3064835@nntp.netcom.ca>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 500684239
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.123.15.178
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com (comp.std.c++)
References: <7m5mhs$ib0$1@gxsn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@netcom.ca
X-Trace: tor-nn1.netcom.ca 931652058 216.123.15.178 (Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:14:18 EDT)
Organization: PeerDirect Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:14:18 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Originator: clamage@taumet


On 10 Jul 99 21:26:05 GMT, "Paul Baxter" <nospam@paje.globalnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>As I understand it, the C++ standard has been accepted by ISO.

Yes, in 1998.

>Is the SAME standard to be ratified by ANSI (or is this even needed?)

Yes, except that it's already done... it's already both an ISO and an
identical ANSI standard, and there's no "ANSI ratification" pending.

Note that the ISO and ANSI committees have been meeting simultaneously
since nearly the beginning of standardization... every major vote has
been done with all the ISO and all the ANSI people in the same room. The
committees decided early on that they wanted to be "joined at the hip"
like siamese twins; they walk everywhere together in perfect step.
Everything was done with full consensus.

>They valued stability of the standard as paramount, and were trying to use
>this against C++. Personally I'm happy with an ISO standard but didn't feel
>I could refute their claims without some more specific knowledge.

The C++ standard is 100% stable: We aren't allowed to consider changes
for five years.

Of course, the committee is still doing some work: We are processing
potential defect reports (DRs) in the meantime to fix typos and add
clarifications and things like that, and we will likely produce a
technical corrigendum (TC) in about two years which will bundle up and
make "official" these minor fixes. But this process can't be abused to
add features... that is, we can only process true defects (e.g., if the
standard says "2 equals 3" which is wrong; or if the standard says
objects are red in one place, and blue in another, which is
inconsistent; things like that).

We specifically cannot sneak in new features by calling them defects
(e.g., no one can say "oh, the library doesn't have a hash-based map
[or, garbage collection; or, a GUI library], I consider that a defect!"
to sneak in a new feature). Not to say that it hasn't been tried; it
just isn't accepted. :-)

>I'm somewhat confused and wish to know simply whether the new ISO standard
>*IS* the current world-wide standard that (hopefully) compilers will strive
>for

Absolutely yes.

>, or are the posts going to be moved in the next year or so with a
>slightly modified ANSI standard?

Absolutely no.

Herb


---
Herb Sutter (mailto:hsutter@peerdirect.com)

PeerDirect Inc.     2695 North Sheridan Way, Suite 150
www.peerdirect.com  Mississauga Ontario Canada L5K 2N6


[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]