"Sergiy Kanilo" <skanilo@artannlabs.com> wrote in message news:<2hv3hsFhfigsU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Francis Glassborow" <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:31WCzWJAuxtAFwHs@robinton.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Then join ACCU where we provide a bi-monthly report on what is happening
> > at WG21 and WG14.
>
> Could you give more datails about that. The ACCU Site states that
>
> "Those interested in the C and C++ standardisation processes may join the
> ISO Standards Development Forum. The ACCU provides these members with
> access to current standardisation material and a bi-yearly standards
> briefing letter ..."
>
> Unfortunately, I can not find how to join ISDF, and only other information
> about
> ISDF is http://www.accu.org/isdf/public/ dated by January 98

Unfortunatly the ACCU website is long overdue for updating - it is
maintained by a small group of volunteers who have other pressures on
their time.

The ISDF was once a "special interest group" within the ACCU and was
an optional extra on membership.  Up to 1996 (or thereabouts) it
published its own bi-annual newsletter.  Since then, reporting on
standards activities has moved to the main ACCU publications (C Vu and
Overload).  Hence there is no longer a separate SIG to join - but the
option to donate to a fund that supports standards activities is still
available to members.

As Francis indicates, there is a bi-monthly report on standards
activities - and on a less frequent basis feature articles on specific
issues.
--
Alan Griffiths (former editor of the ACCU's ISDF Newsletter)
http://www.octopull.demon.co.uk/

---
[ 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                       ]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:00:42 +0000 (UTC), David Abrahams
<dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:

>> rather than having to wait to be bundled with more contentious
>> features. This carries dangers proportionate to the size of the
>> feature so should only be allowed for small features eg; move
>> constructors.
>
> Wow, if you think that's really small, I'd hate to see a medium-sized
> feature.  I mean, it's not "templates" or anything, but move
> constructors has lots of implications, and no universal agreement.
> Note that nobody's even written a complete specification yet.

I thought you had?

Regarding implications and taking move constructors as an example, what's
the impact?

1. Slight changes to the compiler
2. Some changes to the STL
3. Slight enhancements of the source of a test application

If one were to patch in support to a major compiler - GCC is handy - one
could have worked out all the implications and problems within weeks. One
needn't patch all of the SGI STL - just say vector<> and list<> which
would be enough for testing.

After getting yourself happy, circulate on the internet among people who'd
also really like the feature. After they test it, one can be pretty sure
one has all the angles covered. A bugzilla entry can work as a central
discussion point for all parties.

To qualify as a fast-tracked small feature, the ability to swiftly patch
it in and get widespread volunteer testing is paramount (ie; parallelising
debugging). In fact, one could view how I did the GCC visibility patch
that I originally arrived here for as a template - it's taken two months
overall and will be in GCC v3.5.

>> I'm hardly the first to call for such a thing I'm sure - I'm merely
>> saying "from the coal-face" that certain pretty obvious minor
>> additions to the feature set are urgently required.
>
> There's plenty of agreement on that, but the problem is that every
> feature takes more work than you seem to think, and we only have so
> much volunteer manpower at our disposal.  People who "deliberately
> avoid having anything to do with groups like this" but expect us to
> hurry up and approve their favorite features aren't doing anything to
> contribute to the solution.

You know I'm no good with theoretical discussions, everyone just gets
confused (remember c++-sig!). I cannot contribute directly in any useful
fashion to the ISO C++ standardisation process as it currently works. I
could however go patch GCC to add move constructors though unfortunately
the GCC maintainers would not accept such a patch into the mainline as the
standard hasn't ruled on it yet.

If there were a fast-track mechanism based on normative addendums whereby
it worked via a volunteer patching in support to GCC, other volunteers
testing it and then the original volunteer writing up a report consisting
of:

1. Impact of the patch on other areas of C++ (existing source especially)
2. Cost of implementation (to GCC)
3. Benchmarks of improvements (before & after code)
4. A proposed diff of the standard adding the feature

.. then I could be much more useful. And not just me, I can see a lot of
people becoming interested because now they actually can DO something -
not by talking across a period of years and spending thousands of euros
visiting expensive international conferences but actually sitting down and
coding.

For this, the ISO C++ committee would need a website where volunteers can
coordinate (basically a bugzilla server). We'd also need a FREE copy of
the full standard to generate diffs against and much better electronic
presence of proposed amendments so people can foresee contraindications.
And lastly, some assurance that work done would be taken seriously at the
six month meetings and perhaps crediting of those who have contributed.

>> The powers that be can take that or leave it - after all, there is
>> no viable alternative to C++ available in the area it covers so I
>> nor anyone else really has a choice.
>
> There are no powers that be; just a bunch of people who get together
> every 6 months to try to make progress, and spend a lot of time having
> email discussions and writing proposals in between meetings.  You can
> either participate and make a difference or you can expect us to
> handle the things we have the time, energy, and expertise to work on.

If you lament the lack of volunteers, consider how someone unemployed for
two years can possibly afford to attend committee meetings?

Consider the huge obstacles placed in the way of attracting volunteers:
total lack of immediacy (long times between proposal and acceptance),
primitive use of the internet and far too much theory and not enough
coding. People also feel deliberations go on in private as there is
precious little evidence in public - I've only ever seen committee reports
in (costly) trade magazines.

The mode of production of free software is ideal for minor new features to
the standard - it would also remove large amounts of work from you guys
letting you focus on more major features or ruling on contradictions etc.
I'd also imagine the maintainers of GCC would be very happy as they'd get
most of implementations of small new features well ahead of time.

Cheers,
Niall

---
[ 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                       ]

In article <opr8oc6giyy9klrv@news.iol.ie>, Niall Douglas
<s_googlegroups@nedprod.com> writes
>Consider the huge obstacles placed in the way of attracting volunteers:
>total lack of immediacy (long times between proposal and acceptance),
>primitive use of the internet and far too much theory and not enough
>coding. People also feel deliberations go on in private as there is
>precious little evidence in public - I've only ever seen committee
>reports in (costly) trade magazines.

Then join ACCU where we provide a bi-monthly report on what is happening
at WG21 and WG14.

Join J16 (agreed that is not as cheap) you do not have to attend
meetings unless you want to be able to vote.

However be assured that the one thing we will not be doing is
continually adding or modifying C++. That way lies chaos (Java already
has that and the only way to ensure your Java code does what you think
it will is to ship the JVM along with the app.)

--
Francis Glassborow      ACCU
Author of 'You Can Do It!' see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit
For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects

---
[ 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                       ]

"Francis Glassborow" <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31WCzWJAuxtAFwHs@robinton.demon.co.uk...
> In article <opr8oc6giyy9klrv@news.iol.ie>, Niall Douglas
> <s_googlegroups@nedprod.com> writes
> >Consider the huge obstacles placed in the way of attracting volunteers:
> >total lack of immediacy (long times between proposal and acceptance),
> >primitive use of the internet and far too much theory and not enough
> >coding. People also feel deliberations go on in private as there is
> >precious little evidence in public - I've only ever seen committee
> >reports in (costly) trade magazines.
>
> Then join ACCU where we provide a bi-monthly report on what is happening
> at WG21 and WG14.

Could you give more datails about that. The ACCU Site states that

"Those interested in the C and C++ standardisation processes may join the
ISO Standards Development Forum. The ACCU provides these members with
access to current standardisation material and a bi-yearly standards
briefing letter ..."

Unfortunately, I can not find how to join ISDF, and only other information
about
ISDF is http://www.accu.org/isdf/public/ dated by January 98

Thanks,
Serge



---
[ 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                       ]