From 262185183773458781 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-07-08 01:24:30 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!rfg From: rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions Message-ID: Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <212tii$5nb@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <215t2r$sv4@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 08:04:01 GMT Lines: 25 In article <215t2r$sv4@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >In response to rfg's comments I should clarify a few points in my >earlier message: > ... >I wrote the extension so that the proposal could be considered on its >merits instead of being rejected due to lack of an implementation or >programs which used the extension. I should say that I think that John did a good and noble thing by providing an example implementation for this particular proposed extension. Indeed, I wish that *all* extensions had publically available implementations which could be carefully evaluated before x3j16 considered the extensions in question. So anyway, I apologize if I sounded like I was getting on John's case before. That wasn't my intent. But I did want to make the point that there is a seemingly never ending list of things that people want to add to the standard definition of C++. -- -- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------ ------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com --------------------------------------- ------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------