From 2691326346871309386
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-07-08 03:04:48 PST
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!mcsun!sunic!news.lth.se!dag
From: dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions
Date: 8 Jul 1993 09:45:45 GMT
Organization: Department of Automatic Control, Lund, Sweden
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <21gqc9$h5v@nic.lth.se>
References: <C9Js78.E7F@jabba.ess.harris.com> <rfgC9KttA.AKq@netcom.com> <25937@alice.att.com> <rfgC9u74I.IKC@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: seldon.control.lth.se

In <comp.std.c++> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>
>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. :-)

Hmmm.  San Jose is more exotic than Munich to me (see signature).  I
only remember seeing Ron at one meeting, the one in San Jose, but I
could be mistaken.

People on the net should be relieved that Ron's comments on the
committee mail reflectors are much more constructive and interesting.

>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.

Exactly, and that is why we still spend time on the working paper
instead of just sending it out for ballot now.

Dag Bruck
--
Department of Automatic Control		E-mail: dag@control.lth.se
Lund Institute of Technology
P. O. Box 118				Phone:	+46 46-104287
S-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN			Fax:    +46 46-138118


