In article <6uqiov$vbt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jkanze@otelo.ibmmail.com
writes
>I believe that our comments on CD2 were as important as any others.  And
>we didn't try and obstruct with threats of a no vote later if we didn't
>get our way, unlike at least one national delegation.  In several cases,
>we proposed several possible solutions, specifying which one we preferred,
>but accepting any, or even another solution which we hadn't specified.

You are entitled to your opinion.  I was there and had been attending
meetings for a couple of years,  I do not wish to denigrate the genuine
efforts of a number of French individuals but a lot of work was done by
others (not a few of which were paying their own way.  Having a sponsor
is nice but at least a third of the those at most meetings are
effectively paying their own way.)





Francis Glassborow      Chair of 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              ]

In article <lo7c2FBntrD2Ewv+@robinton.demon.co.uk>,
  Francis Glassborow <francisG@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <m3lnn5fo3h.fsf@gabi-soft.fr>, J. Kanze <kanze@gabi-soft.fr>
> writes
> >More significant than the final vote as to the general opinion was the
> >fact that whenever the extensions were proposed, the French were the
> >only national body to vote against them.  Whatever my personal opinion
> >in the matter, I must recognize that the global opinion was in favor of
> >the extensions.  I do not think that there can be any doubt about this.
>
> The voting records of WG21 will show (I am sorry to say) that over the
> last few years there has hardly ever been a French delegation to vote
> against them.  The French no vote on CD1 was one that, had we tried to
> act on it would probably have delayed the standard even further.  The UK
> frequently voted No on issues but we also attended meetings so that we
> could actively work for change as well as listen to proponents of issues
> that we did not like.

It's true that there was a short period, just around CD1, where we were
unable to participate.  (Our major corporate backer backed out.)  On the
other hand, I think we made up for it at other times; our comments on CD2,
for example, were important for several chapters.

Our no votes on the CD's were largely based on the understanding that
once voted in, a CD could not be changed before becoming a standard.  We
said this explicitly in our comments on the second CD, with the result
that we received "clarifications" from several people at ISO which made
the issue even less clear (for me, anyway -- I've never been very strong
at this sort of administrative trivia).

> It is rarely enough to just vote no, you must participate if you want
> change.

I believe that our comments on CD2 were as important as any others.  And
we didn't try and obstruct with threats of a no vote later if we didn't
get our way, unlike at least one national delegation.  In several cases,
we proposed several possible solutions, specifying which one we preferred,
but accepting any, or even another solution which we hadn't specified.

--
James Kanze    +33 (0)1 39 23 84 71    mailto: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
        +49 (0)69 66 45 33 10    mailto: jkanze@otelo.ibmmail.com
GABI Software, 22 rue Jacques-Lemercier, 78000 Versailles, France
Conseils en informatique orient   e objet --
              -- Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
---
[ 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              ]

James Kuyper wrote:
>
> It's been frequently argued that the committee exceeded its charter
> (and not just individual's opinions about what it was supposed to do).
> The fact that the results were approved unanimously only means that no
> one cared about that issue strongly enough to justify disapproving it.
> It's not proof that there were no excesses.

I think the temptation on the part of the standards committee to
"innovate", and the subsequent approval of these innovations, was rooted
in part in the suspicion that one of the effects of standardization
would be to create a temporary but significant lull in the evolution of
the language. That is, before there was a standard, lots of people
worked furiously to extend the language; but now that there is a
standard, there is considerable reason for users of C++ to avoid
"innovative" compilers, and reap the benefits of a static standard for a
while.

In other words, they wanted to get just one more elegant feature in
"under the wire", because otherwise it wouldn't get in there for another
five years.

--

Ciao,
Paul
---
[ 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              ]

James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net> writes:

|>  Nathan Myers wrote:
|>  >
|>  > Francis Glassborow <francisG@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|>  > >WG21+J16 have suffered from frequent criticism
|>  > >that they were being too creative, crossing the line between existing
|>  > >practice (which they are supposed to standardise) and innovation which
|>  > >they are not supposed to do.
|>  >
|>  > "supposed to"?  "not supposed to"?
|>  >
|>  > Various pundits have invented their own rules for what the committee
|>  > was "supposed to do", but those rules have never been more than those
|>  > individuals' opinions.  The C++ committee acted according to its
|>  > charter, which required that it satisfy the ISO national bodies,
|>  > which it did (unanimously).
|>
|>  It's been frequently argued that the committee exceeded its charter (and
|>  not just individual's opinions about what it was supposed to do).

Well, I'm one of those who would contend that the committee did more
than what I wanted it to do.  (Or rather, spent too much time doing it.
I actually like most of the extensions, but I would have liked to have a
standard without them three years ago even more.  If we'd had the
standard three years ago, most compilers would be more or less compliant
today, and writing portable C++ wouldn't be so tricky.)

Still, I don't think I could say that the committee exceeded its
charter.  In fact, I don't think I could say that the committee had a
charter.  At least, I've never seen a document that could be claimed to
be such.

|>  The
|>  fact that the results were approved unanimously only means that no one
|>  cared about that issue strongly enough to justify disapproving it. It's
|>  not proof that there were no excesses.

The only vote where I am at all familiar with the motivations is the
French vote.  And our yes was motivated largely by the single feeling
that we needed a standard as soon as possible, regardless of what it
was.  We had opposed the extensions systematically.  On the other hand,
as far as I know, we were the only national body to do so.

More significant than the final vote as to the general opinion was the
fact that whenever the extensions were proposed, the French were the
only national body to vote against them.  Whatever my personal opinion
in the matter, I must recognize that the global opinion was in favor of
the extensions.  I do not think that there can be any doubt about this.

--
James Kanze    +33 (0)1 39 23 84 71    mailto: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, 22 rue Jacques-Lemercier, 78000 Versailles, France
Conseils en informatique orient   e objet --
              -- Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung


[ 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 <m3lnn5fo3h.fsf@gabi-soft.fr>, J. Kanze <kanze@gabi-soft.fr>
writes
>More significant than the final vote as to the general opinion was the
>fact that whenever the extensions were proposed, the French were the
>only national body to vote against them.  Whatever my personal opinion
>in the matter, I must recognize that the global opinion was in favor of
>the extensions.  I do not think that there can be any doubt about this.

The voting records of WG21 will show (I am sorry to say) that over the
last few years there has hardly ever been a French delegation to vote
against them.  The French no vote on CD1 was one that, had we tried to
act on it would probably have delayed the standard even further.  The UK
frequently voted No on issues but we also attended meetings so that we
could actively work for change as well as listen to proponents of issues
that we did not like.

It is rarely enough to just vote no, you must participate if you want
change.



Francis Glassborow      Chair of 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 <francisG@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>WG21+J16 have suffered from frequent criticism
>that they were being too creative, crossing the line between existing
>practice (which they are supposed to standardise) and innovation which
>they are not supposed to do.

"supposed to"?  "not supposed to"?

Various pundits have invented their own rules for what the committee
was "supposed to do", but those rules have never been more than those
individuals' opinions.  The C++ committee acted according to its
charter, which required that it satisfy the ISO national bodies,
which it did (unanimously).

--
Nathan Myers
ncm@nospam.cantrip.org  http://www.cantrip.org/



[ 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              ]

Nathan Myers wrote:
>
> Francis Glassborow <francisG@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >WG21+J16 have suffered from frequent criticism
> >that they were being too creative, crossing the line between existing
> >practice (which they are supposed to standardise) and innovation which
> >they are not supposed to do.
>
> "supposed to"?  "not supposed to"?
>
> Various pundits have invented their own rules for what the committee
> was "supposed to do", but those rules have never been more than those
> individuals' opinions.  The C++ committee acted according to its
> charter, which required that it satisfy the ISO national bodies,
> which it did (unanimously).

It's been frequently argued that the committee exceeded its charter (and
not just individual's opinions about what it was supposed to do). The
fact that the results were approved unanimously only means that no one
cared about that issue strongly enough to justify disapproving it. It's
not proof that there were no excesses.
---
[ 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              ]