Topic: Why are the Standard Core Language papers protected?
Author: Christopher Jefferson <caj@cs.york.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:49:36 CST Raw View
(Apologises, this is a message about the C++ committee, rather than the
language. However I hope this is the most approriate group for this
discussion.)
Why are the C++ Standard Core Language papers on www.open-std.org
(N1768, N1768 and N1769) protected? I am trying to get more deeply into
understanding how the evolution of C++ happens, and find it strange that
some papers are protected against being read... I find it very useful to
be able to read the standard library papers.
Chris
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
Author: dsp@bdal.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Daniel_Kr=FCgler_=28ne_Spangenberg=29=22?=)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:54:45 GMT Raw View
Hello Christopher Jefferson ,
Christopher Jefferson schrieb:
> Why are the C++ Standard Core Language papers on www.open-std.org=20
> (N1768, N1768 and N1769) protected? I am trying to get more deeply=20
> into understanding how the evolution of C++ happens, and find it=20
> strange that some papers are protected against being read... I find it=20
> very useful to be able to read the standard library papers.=20
I can't answer your question but I also observed some inconsistencies in=20
the access rights of papers on several sections of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/. So I don't=20
understand why papers like N1747, N1748, and N1749
(C++ Standard Core Language Active Issues/Defect Reports/Closed Issues,=20
Revision 33) are inaccessible for publics, but
in contrast N1762, N1763, and N1764 (C++ Standard Library Active=20
Issues/Defect Report/Closed Issues List (Revision 35))
are not.
Greetings from Bremen,
Daniel Kr=FCgler
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
Author: bop@gmb.dk ("Bo Persson")
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:33:42 GMT Raw View
"Christopher Jefferson" <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:d4og7e$bjo$1@pump1.york.ac.uk...
> (Apologises, this is a message about the C++ committee, rather than
> the language. However I hope this is the most approriate group for
> this discussion.)
>
> Why are the C++ Standard Core Language papers on www.open-std.org
> (N1768, N1768 and N1769) protected? I am trying to get more deeply
> into understanding how the evolution of C++ happens, and find it
> strange that some papers are protected against being read... I find it
> very useful to be able to read the standard library papers.
>
It's some of the internal committee papers that are protected.
A public version of the language and library papers can be found on the
committee's home page
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/
Bo Persson
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
Author: beman@acm.org ("Beman Dawes")
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 05:31:37 GMT Raw View
"Christopher Jefferson" <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d4og7e$bjo$1@pump1.york.ac.uk...
> (Apologises, this is a message about the C++ committee, rather than the
> language. However I hope this is the most approriate group for this
> discussion.)
>
> Why are the C++ Standard Core Language papers on www.open-std.org (N1768,
> N1768 and N1769) protected? I am trying to get more deeply into
> understanding how the evolution of C++ happens, and find it strange that
> some papers are protected against being read... I find it very useful to
> be able to read the standard library papers.
The unprotected versions are available from the home page "Core Issues
Lists" links. See
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html, etc.
The difference between the public version and the private committee version
isn't technical. The committee version has some additional non-technical
comments, like who has committed to write wording, or that sort of thing.
The differences are so minor it doesn't really seem worth the effort to have
separate public and private versions. The library working group switched to
a single version several years ago, and I don't recall anyone ever
complaining about that. But each working group sets its own operating
procedures, so that's their choice.
It is worth taking a moment here to publicly thank Clark Nelson, who puts
the mailings together, and Keld Simonsen, who maintains the WG21 web site.
Their efforts make the doings of the committee much more accessible to the
public. Like everyone on the committee, they are volunteers who give their
time to help make C++ a better language. Thanks, Clark and Keld.
--Beman
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]