From 1388074116985187346
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-08-09 23:29:01 PST
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!math.fu-berlin.de!fub!mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!news
From: maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller)
Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions
Message-ID: <1993Aug10.060148.27191@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
References: <rfgCB7s1z.CGG@netcom.com> <CBB565.1wIn@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> <solomon.744893157@cs.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 06:01:48 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <solomon.744893157@cs.wisc.edu> solomon@gjetost.cs.wisc.edu (Marvin Solomon) writes:

>Thus at any time each extension would have its own status:  Proposed, 
>draft, or frozen.  The benefits of a standard for the core language would
>not be delayed by waiting for the various extensions to settle down.
>This approach would also expedite the generation of extensions.
>Because publication of an extension standard would not "obsolete" existing
>compilers (and programs), there would be less pressure to prove the importance
>of an extension before adopting a standard for it.  Once the extension is
>standardized, the marketplace can decide whether it is worthwhile.

	The ISO process does not work like that. There is a Standard,
it stands for a while, then lapses or gets renewed. There is no provision
for continuous upgrades or additions, other than a creation of a new
ISO work item.

	There *is* a mechanism in place for dealing with extensions.
Namely, the extensions get written up, and even if rejected can
form the basis of an implementation.

	For example any vendor wishing to capture the market
by providing nested functions with closures and/or object 
closures, can refer to my technical paper as a starting point.

	In this case, since one of the main uses of closures
is as callbacks, which tend to be environment specific, uses
are unlikely to be subject to too many portability constraints.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd,		    CSERVE:10236.1703 
        6 MacKay St ASHFIELD,	    Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 
        NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA	    


