jackklein@att.net (Jack Klein) writes:

| On 25 Jul 99 00:58:10 GMT, clamage@eng.sun.com (Steve Clamage) wrote
| in comp.std.c++:
|
| > jackklein@att.net (Jack Klein) writes:
| >
| > >I was just wondering if there is a publicly available rationale
| > >document for the ANSI/ISO C++ standard as there was for ANSI C89 and
| > >ISO C9X.

Ins't this a FAQ? It should.

--
Gabriel Dos Reis, dosreis@cmla.ens-cachan.fr


[ 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              ]

Steve Clamage <clamage@eng.sun.com> wrote in message
news:7ndlo4$j3s$1@engnews1.eng.sun.com...
> jackklein@att.net (Jack Klein) writes:
>
> >I was just wondering if there is a publicly available rationale
> >document for the ANSI/ISO C++ standard as there was for ANSI C89 and
> >ISO C9X.
>
> No rationale was ever written. A number of people during the
> course of the development of the standard volunteered to work
> on one, but without exception they resigned from the
> C++ committee before getting very far with the task. It was
> all the committee could do to get out a reasonably complete
> and correct standard in a reasonable time frame.

Every time I hear this, it worries me.  One of the things that impressed me
about THE DESIGN AND EVOLUTION OF C++ was how often it pointed out the need
for careful consideration and real world experience before making a change
to C++.  Also, knowing why a language decision was made helps me to
understand how a language feature should be used.  A Rationale for Standard
C++ would help me better understand the changes made, and give me more
confidence in the "rightness" of those changes.




[ 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 <Wi0n3.309$yD6.9392@ultra>, Matt Seitz <mseitz@meridian-
data.com> writes
>Every time I hear this, it worries me.  One of the things that impressed me
>about THE DESIGN AND EVOLUTION OF C++ was how often it pointed out the need
>for careful consideration and real world experience before making a change
>to C++.  Also, knowing why a language decision was made helps me to
>understand how a language feature should be used.  A Rationale for Standard
>C++ would help me better understand the changes made, and give me more
>confidence in the "rightness" of those changes.

I do not think anyone disagrees with that, however with limited
resources the Committees had to do what they could.  It would have been
nice to have had every work group with a regular archivist responsible
for recording reasons for decisions but without willing people it was
not done and any attempt to provide a retrospective will lead to
considerable disagreements.  I would be surprised if any working group
had anybody that attended all meetings, and our personal memories are
coloured by our own views.

The unfortunate consequence is that the Committees' memory resides in a
considerable number of people and as these move off to do other things
it is steadily eroded.  For example, the departure of Josee Lajoie
removes a very important source of information about why core 1 made
some of its decisions.

Of course with sufficient funds I guess we could set up a project to
write a retrospective rationale (actually this is most important in
recording why things were rejected and why seemingly obvious answers
were 'ignored'.)  I think that about $25 million (no I am serious)
should about cover it.


Francis Glassborow      Journal Editor, 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              ]

I was just wondering if there is a publicly available rationale
document for the ANSI/ISO C++ standard as there was for ANSI C89 and
ISO C9X.

I would certainly appreciate an URL if it is available legally online.

TIA,
Jack Klein


[ 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              ]

jackklein@att.net (Jack Klein) writes:

>I was just wondering if there is a publicly available rationale
>document for the ANSI/ISO C++ standard as there was for ANSI C89 and
>ISO C9X.

No rationale was ever written. A number of people during the
course of the development of the standard volunteered to work
on one, but without exception they resigned from the
C++ committee before getting very far with the task. It was
all the committee could do to get out a reasonably complete
and correct standard in a reasonable time frame.

The closest thing we have is "The Design and Evolution of C++"
by Bjarne Stroustrup.  The third edition of Stroustrup's
"The C++ Progamming Language" also contains historical notes,
and is more recent than D&E.

There might be a new "Annotated C++ Reference Manual" in the
not-distant future, and it also might contain historical
and explanatory data.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com
---
[ 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              ]

On 25 Jul 99 00:58:10 GMT, clamage@eng.sun.com (Steve Clamage) wrote
in comp.std.c++:

> jackklein@att.net (Jack Klein) writes:
>
> >I was just wondering if there is a publicly available rationale
> >document for the ANSI/ISO C++ standard as there was for ANSI C89 and
> >ISO C9X.
>
> No rationale was ever written. A number of people during the
> course of the development of the standard volunteered to work
> on one, but without exception they resigned from the
> C++ committee before getting very far with the task. It was
> all the committee could do to get out a reasonably complete
> and correct standard in a reasonable time frame.
>
> The closest thing we have is "The Design and Evolution of C++"
> by Bjarne Stroustrup.  The third edition of Stroustrup's
> "The C++ Progamming Language" also contains historical notes,
> and is more recent than D&E.
>
> There might be a new "Annotated C++ Reference Manual" in the
> not-distant future, and it also might contain historical
> and explanatory data.

Thanks.  I've read Dr. Stroustrup's statement of his intention to
produce an annotated version of the standard sometime next year, and I
am looking forward to it.

Still it's a pity.  The C89 and C9X rationale's make such interesting
reading and offer a glimpse behind the scenes!

Jack
---
[ 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              ]