From 644278576932242239 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-07-07 16:33:10 PST Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions Message-ID: <25963@alice.att.com> Date: 7 Jul 93 21:37:23 GMT Article-I.D.: alice.25963 References: Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ Lines: 46 In article , schouten@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten) writes: > In article <25953@alice.att.com> ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes: > So the real problem has nothing to do with numerical issues or > character availability or whether the moon is made of green cheese. > It is simply that there are not enough people on the committee that > want an exponentiation operator. We could have saved a lot of > time and frustration if you'd just admitted that from the start. No, that's not right either. There are plenty of people on the committee who want an exponentiation operator. There is just no single proposal that everyone likes well enough to be willing to approve. Some people like one, some like another. I've told you my opinion, which is one of many. I don't know all of them, because I don't go to Extensions working group meetings. > Is there any official or semi-official opinion from the committee on > this particular subject? It seems to come up with some regularity in > discussions as well as in newsgroups (which IMHO belies the idea that > it is in no great demand). I believe that each time it has come up, it has lost in the priority vote. Each meeting, Bjarne (who chairs the Extensions group) presents a list of extensions for which proposals are on the table. I don't think that an exponentiation operator has even made it out of that list. > Mind you, I have no problem with the > committee making an arbitrary decision on the matter (many important > decisions are somewhat arbitrary), just don't try to tell me that > it's too difficult, or you've run out of characters or any of that > nonsense. That's like saying you won't put it into the language > because the moon is made of green cheese: 1) It ain't, 2) even > if it were, it would have little impact on the matter. I am telling you some of the arguments I have heard. I know I haven't heard them all. I also know that despite several proposals, there is no proposal that has even gotten enough support to be put to a vote. Perhaps someone who sits in on the Extensions WG sessions can supply more detail. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@research.att.com