From -5015700658816159850 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: 1993-06-16 01:29:47 PST Xref: gmd.de comp.lang.c++:24526 comp.std.c++:2809 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!mole-end!mat From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions Message-ID: <1993Jun15.214156.3591@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> Summary: When is an extension not an extension? Organization: : References: <25697@alice.att.com> <1993Jun14.150349.778@udel.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 21:41:56 GMT Lines: 20 In article <1993Jun14.150349.778@udel.edu>, carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes: > In article rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes: > >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. > > It *would* be telling, if it were a comment given by nearly any other > standardization process. The problem with saying that about C++ is, at > the time the standardization process started, there was virtually no > existing practice to build on! The design of the language was not, and > still is not, finished. ... These extensions are not extensions in the usual sense of the word. They are the completion of one or another major part of the language. -- (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ