From -5658134319315234600 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-06-13 13:51:52 PST Xref: gmd.de comp.lang.c++:24322 comp.std.c++:2799 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!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: <25697@alice.att.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1993 20:30:11 GMT Lines: 32 In article <25697@alice.att.com> bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes: > >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 find it a particularly telling comment that (in the context of an ANSI/ISO standardization effort) a strong committment to the plain and simple standardization of existing practice is considered to be a view held only by radical extremists. What can I say? It's a funny world we live in. Love is hate. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Standardization is Research & Development. -- // Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette uucp: ...uunet!lupine!segfault!rfg // // "On the one hand I knew that programs could have a compelling // and deep logical beauty, on the other hand I was forced to // admit that most programs are presented in a way fit for // mechanical execution, but even if of any beauty at all, // totally unfit for human appreciation." // -- Edsger W. Dijkstra