From 9065221182984130289 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-07-08 01:36:02 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!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: <25937@alice.att.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 08:19:29 GMT Lines: 52 In article <25937@alice.att.com> bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes: > > >rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette @ Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)) writes > > > P.S. At this point in time, even if X3J16 totally ignored *all* suggested > > extensions (including the ones that Bjarne himeself is ramming... ummm... > > I'm sorry... "sheparding" through X3J16) > >For the record: I don't ``ram'' extensions through X3J16/ISO-WG. Yes. Sorry about that. As chariman of the extensions working group, you don't exactly have to. (It is interesting to note however that huge and rather poorly defined hunks of extension-stuff which were proposed by you, e.g. templates, exceptions, namespaces, were adopted, while several trivially small and well defined extension proposals have fallen by the wayside.) >I find Ron's observations about the workings of X3J16/ISO-WG mostly inaccurate and >based on heresay... I find that statement rather inaccurate and entirely inspecific. You might as well just say that my mother wears army boots. :-) >Standardizing a language in widespread use is neither easy nor fun and the people >who actually struggle through that process deserves better than Ron's innuendo. Hummm.... You're right. How about if we give them all company-paid trips to exotic and scenic destinations like Munich and Hawaii along with company-paid first class accomodations. (I know. I know. It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it. :-) >PS I think we have a decent chance at meeting the September '94 deadline for a >draft standard. A draft standard is one thing, and an *approved* standard is another. The current working paper could be send out to ballot today, but it would have to go through so many repeated rounds of public review (to find and clean up all of the holes) that we would not have an approved standard for at least five years. By the way, don't forget that I made a very explicit offer to take bets on the *actual* completion date of the *actual* standard. That offer still stands, and I'm still looking for any takers. -- -- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------ ------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com --------------------------------------- ------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------