In article <darin-B100EC.09134323042000@fullnews.metawire.com>, Darin
Adler <darin@bentspoon.com> writes
>Perhaps you are talking about farther-reaching language extension
>proposals that the ones in these two documents. Such proposals aren't
>really even considered by the committee. Typically, the first step is to
>implement such a proposal in a C++ compiler, before anything happens in
>the standardization process.

Quite untrue.  The Standards Committees considered and rejected many
proposals between 1990 and 1998.  Unfortunately they lacked the
resources to fully document these and the reasons for rejecting them (we
all know the problem of writing documentation and the way it consumes
productive time:).  This is a pity because the long term cost is that
those same proposals will often resurface and time has to be taken
rejecting them again (or perhaps not:)



Francis Glassborow      Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA          +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation

---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> writes:

|>  Quite untrue.  The Standards Committees considered and rejected many
|>  proposals between 1990 and 1998.  Unfortunately they lacked the
|>  resources to fully document these and the reasons for rejecting them =
(we
|>  all know the problem of writing documentation and the way it consumes
|>  productive time:).  This is a pity because the long term cost is that
|>  those same proposals will often resurface and time has to be taken
|>  rejecting them again (or perhaps not:)

You mean like the change in for-scope.  Rejected sometimes around 1991,
on the grounds that it would break existing code, then represented and
accepted later.

--=20
James Kanze                               mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelh=FCttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627

---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Hi,

I was wondering whether there's a place on the internet where rejected
proposals to the '98 C++ standard are published including their
arguments on both pro and con site and on which grounds these where
rejected. Any hints?

--
Sebastian Moleski
----
The Borland C++ Builder bug lists:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~bcbbugs/


---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <8ds153$pus$1@news.nikoma.de>, "Sebastian Moleski"
<sebmol@gmx.net> wrote:

> I was wondering whether there's a place on the internet where rejected
> proposals to the '98 C++ standard are published including their
> arguments on both pro and con site and on which grounds these where
> rejected. Any hints?

One class of "rejected proposal" is already available. Defect Reports
which have been classified either "not a defect" or "extension" (for
consideration for a future C++ standard) are available for the core
language and the library at:

   <http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_closed.html>
   <http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/lwg-closed.html>

Perhaps you are talking about farther-reaching language extension
proposals that the ones in these two documents. Such proposals aren't
really even considered by the committee. Typically, the first step is to
implement such a proposal in a C++ compiler, before anything happens in
the standardization process.

    -- Darin

---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]