From -5983544499854711270
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,9a6b7da9ba54eaea,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-06-09 14:17:49 PST
Xref: gmd.de comp.lang.c++:24050 comp.std.c++:2777
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!princeton!allegra!alice!bs
From: bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: C++ Language Extensions
Message-ID: <25697@alice.att.com>
Date: 9 Jun 93 19:33:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.25697
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 23


There has been a lot of messages arguing for or against extensions
in general and for or against particular proposed extensions.
The extreme positions can be summarized as:

	This extension is essential now!
and
	No extensions!

I will post two long messages on extensions. The first ``How to Propose
and extension'' states the position of the extensions working group of
the ANSI/ISO C++ standards group (this is a re-post from last year).
The other ``Why consider language extensions?'' explains some of my views.

Summary:

	A sceptical, conservative, and thorough approach to extensions
	provides a greater degree of stability and utility than either
	of the extreme positions.

Naturally, this position will not please people with more extreme views.

	- Bjarne Stroustrup (extensions WG chair)