From -7303111877441788162 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,82b9a0e2d78eb842 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-09 15:34:20 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!gmi!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$m8s@panix3.panix.com> <1995Mar8.071916.2704@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 20:38:01 GMT Lines: 62 In article <1995Mar8.071916.2704@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, wrote: >In article <3jfilh$m8s@panix3.panix.com>, tmurphy@panix.com (Timothy Murphy) writes: >> Sealed classes. > >Not important enough to add to C++ at this time. > >Besides, this is the wrong place, and you are using the wrong way, to >propose a language extension. > >And you are about 24 months too late. That is a bit unfair and not necessarily true. First, Bjarne is slightly guilty of encouraging people to write extension proposals WELL after there was a strong feeling in the committee that extensions should be curtailed. 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). And National Bodies of SC22 can also propose and/or require extensions at ANY stage in the Standardisation process -- many have only recently seen the Working Paper and the recent CD Registration ballot was the first offical chance they have had to state any requirements formally. 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. Fourthly, the committee is probably considering major extensions to the language right now in Austin. (I refer to partial specialisations). At least, I sure hope they are, because I think they are important, and so does the Australian National body. And I suspect several other National Bodies will agree, as well as the individual members of the committee. Fifthly, whether or not the committee had much, or even any, choice in the matter, the details of the Standardisation process have been withheld from the users -- the public. And we are going to PAY for not leaking details to the public earlier. More important, the public is going to pay. A lot of users are going to write comments on issues the committee has _already_ considered. How can they know, since they do not have access to the minutes of meetings? -- 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