From -7857151413615551192 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,82b9a0e2d78eb842 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-13 12:02:26 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!news From: maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) Subject: Re: Sealed Classes Message-ID: Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia References: <3jfilh$m8s@panix3.panix.com> <1995Mar11.130641.21198@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 15:29:33 GMT Lines: 87 In article <1995Mar11.130641.21198@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, wrote: > ... >> Second, anyone can propose an extension during the >> ANSI public review, and the committee is bound to consider >> such a request (even if only to politely reject it). > >True. It's hard to imagine that anything less than a compelling argument >will be accepted, given that it takes about three meetings for even a good, >sound proposal without glitches of any kind to actually be presented to >the committee as a whole. I think you have the idea backwards. You seems to be saying the committee can decide to accept or not accept a proposal. This is "arse about". It is the world at large which will accept or reject the _committee's_ proposal. More specifically, the National Bodies will either accept or reject the _proposed_ Standard for C++. The committee's _task_ is to meet the requirements of SC22 participants. I guess it is ANSI's task to somehow determine it's position -- which it does partly using the ANSI public review. How it does that is an internal matter which will lead by means unknown to me to the USA National Body vote and comments. >> Thirdly, the timing and agenda set by the committee >> is not an end, but a plan to achieve a Standard. >> The committee does not decide on the Standard, the National >> Bodies of SC22 make that decision. If they choose, they >> can send the Working Paper back to the committee for revision, >> irrespective of any "plan" of the committee. > >True enough--but the hurry is (in part) the requirement of the >organizations to which those national bodies belong that if the >work isn't completed in a certain (fuzzy) time frame, it be abandoned. There is no such requirement that I know of. on the contrary, it is quite usual for Working Groups to fail to deliver the goods on schedule, and ISO regularly extends the time frame. Exactly that happened at the last SC22 Plenary. Sam asked for more time and got it -- as a matter of course. >(Almost) nobody on the committee wants to rush--but The Powers That >Can Make Us Throw Our Work Away are forcing the point. Rot. Certain National Bodies have a vested interest in a Standard ASAP. >Then let's make the minutes public--at the appropriate time, when the >committee feels the work is ready to go to the public. >How would you like to take an exam with the exam's grader looking over >your shoulder and taking points away before you've had a chance to check >your work? How would you like to try to write a proposal with someone >broadcasting your speculations to the proposal's audience before you've >had a chance to decide what belongs in the proposal and what doesn't? I wouldn't. >You _need_ some time and space for deliberation before you present the >work. I agree. I voted AGAINST applying for CD registration because I did not think we were ready. Applying for CD registration is a way of saying "we're ready for the first review, we have done enough and are happy enough to receive comments.. and yes, we know it isn't perfect yet" >Of course, what's really needed may be a live Rationale document--and >that's what we haven't got. Most of the answers should be in that >Rationale; we shouldn't have to comb the deliberations to find each one. I suggest Rationale can be added to the Working Paper itself. Provided it is _clearly_ marked as such so it is taken as explanatory rather than normative. -- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au Maxtal Pty Ltd, 81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA Phone: 61-2-566-2189