peter.garner@toward.com (Crazy Pete) writes:

|>  In article <6q7qjn$4ca@engnews1.eng.sun.com>,
|>   clamage@Eng (Steve Clamage) writes:
|>  > ANSI has yet to vote on whether to adopt the same standard as an
|>  > American standard. (Administrative wheels are turning, and there
|>
|>  Thanks for the clarification.  If I understand you correctly, there
|>  is currently no such thing as ANSI C++ or ISO/ANSI C++?  Rather the
|>  correct term is ISO C++?  (I used the term ISO C++ just because I
|>  think Amerika is so ethnocentric, I had no idea it was the also the
|>  only technically correct term!  ;-)

Actually, there is no such thing as ISO C++, either.  Just an ISO final
draft proposed standard.  However, this final draft has passed the last
vote, so it is just a matter of administrative delays until it is
officially a standard (and the text will be the same).

--
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 <6qa5b5$hca@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng> wrote:
>That is, ANSI is obliged to solicit public comments before adopting
>a standard. The comments have an effect only if there is a strong
>outcry against adopting the standard, since ANSI's own technical
>committee (J16) recommended adoption. There isn't any mechanism to
>deal with comments that point out errors or make suggestions for
>changes, since the standard is finished.

So what can the public comment on?  We do not have access to the text of the
document because ANSI won't publish it until AFTER it is approved and in any
event you say that we can't comment on that text.   What kind of public
consultation is that?

--
Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@nortel.ca                   |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
Nortel (MCS) |                                      |  FAX:   (613) 763-5199


[ 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              ]

"Jim Cobban" <Jim.Cobban.jcobban@nt.com> writes:

>In article <6qa5b5$hca@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng> wrote:
>>That is, ANSI is obliged to solicit public comments before adopting
>>a standard. The comments have an effect only if there is a strong
>>outcry against adopting the standard, since ANSI's own technical
>>committee (J16) recommended adoption. There isn't any mechanism to
>>deal with comments that point out errors or make suggestions for
>>changes, since the standard is finished.

>So what can the public comment on?  We do not have access to the text of the
>document because ANSI won't publish it until AFTER it is approved and in any
>event you say that we can't comment on that text.   What kind of public
>consultation is that?

I agree the final public comment period makes little sense, but you
can buy a copy of the FDIS from ANSI at an exorbitant price (see
the FAQ).

When I heard about this public comment period, I thought it was a
mistake. It turned out to be official. I think the ANSI procedures
might not yet be fully integrated into the ISO procedures. The C++
standard is the first to be produced under the new "international"
type of ANSI committee.

On a brighter note, I've heard that ANSI plans to offer an
electronic version of the final standard for about $20 US. When
I have the details, I'll publish them here and in the FAQ.

--
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              ]

In article <6q7ev8$jso@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,
 "Jim Cobban" <Jim.Cobban.jcobban@nt.com> writes:
> ANSI has no authority over me, nor over a lot of the participants in this
> discussion.  I do appreciate that the majority of the actual participants in
> the standards process may be operating under the ANSI banner.  But I
> certainly would not expect to see a tutorial manual nor a compiler vendor
> pushing CSA C++.

CSA C++?  That WAS really funny!  ANSI and ISO are totally equivalent in
terms of C++ standard.  Various national bodies voted to ratify the C++
standard recently, and the US body was ANSI.  You will see ANSI C++, ISO
C++ and ISO/ANSI C++ and they all mean the same thing.

Peace

Peter



[ 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 0@news.primary.net, peter.garner@toward.com (Crazy Pete) writes:
>In article <6q7ev8$jso@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,
> "Jim Cobban" <Jim.Cobban.jcobban@nt.com> writes:
>> ANSI has no authority over me, nor over a lot of the participants in this
>> discussion.  I do appreciate that the majority of the actual participants in
>> the standards process may be operating under the ANSI banner.  But I
>> certainly would not expect to see a tutorial manual nor a compiler vendor
>> pushing CSA C++.
>
>CSA C++?  That WAS really funny!  ANSI and ISO are totally equivalent in
>terms of C++ standard.  Various national bodies voted to ratify the C++
>standard recently, and the US body was ANSI.  You will see ANSI C++, ISO
>C++ and ISO/ANSI C++ and they all mean the same thing.

That explanation is not technically correct, although for practical
purposes it is close.

ANSI publishes American standards. It charters a separate organization
called NCITS to create technical committees to develop the standards.
(There's more detail in the FAQ for this newsgroup.)

ANSI asks for recommendations from the NCITS technical committees, but
the actual members of ANSI vote on whether to accept proposed standards.

The C++ standard has been worked on jointly by NCITS committee J16 and
the ISO technical commitee JTC1/SC22/WG21. The final draft was approved
by a vote of the ISO member nations, of which ANSI is the American
representative. ANSI requested guidance from NCITS on how to vote.
J16 recommended a vote of "yes". That affects only the ISO standard.

ANSI has yet to vote on whether to adopt the same standard as an
American standard. (Administrative wheels are turning, and there
is a public comment period before voting takes place.) As a separate
action, ANSI asked NCITS for a recommendation of whether the ISO
C++ standard should be adopted as an American standard. J16 (to be
even more technical, the US Technical Advisory Group, a subdivision of
J16) recommended yes. In principle, ANSI members could reject the ISO
C++ standard for use as an American standard, even after voting for it
as an international standard. As a practical matter, it is hard to
envision such a thing occurring.

---
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              ]

MWRon@metrowerks.com (MW Ron) wrote:
>
> What organization describes the standard does not matter.   The fact that
> a standards committee any standards committee has set certain normalities
> is what is important.

Rest assured that everybody agrees that having a C++ standard is
important. Now that we have such a standard, we may as well avoid from the
start the US centric practise of calling it ANSI C++. It may not matter
much in practise, as you say, but why not call it ISO C++? This avoids a US
bias, stresses the fact that the standard is truely international, and
recognises contributions to the standardisation process from around the
world.

And, as Steve has explained, there isn't any ANSI C++ standard yet! :-)

Joachim

--
joachim@kraut.bc.ca   (http://www.kraut.bc.ca)
joachim@mercury.bc.ca (http://www.mercury.bc.ca)


[ 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              ]

Jim Cobban <Jim.Cobban.jcobban@nt.com> wrote in article <6q7ev8$jso@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>...
> While I understand that there was an ANSI standard for C for some
> considerable period before there was an ISO standard for it, that does not
> appear to be true for C++.  ANSI is simply one of the national standards
> through which various individuals and corporations are authorized to
> participate in the ISO standards process.
>
> Therefore why do almost all tutorial references and product advertising
> refer constantly to ANSI C++?

Habit and parochialism, I would say.

> ANSI has no authority over me, nor over a lot of the participants in this
> discussion.  I do appreciate that the majority of the actual participants in
> the standards process may be operating under the ANSI banner.  But I
> certainly would not expect to see a tutorial manual nor a compiler vendor
> pushing CSA C++.

I quite agree with your overall point. For much this reason, I consistently
refer to the C Standard and the C++ Standard, without attribution, as
much as possible. When I need to be more precise, I talk about ISO/IEC
9899:1990, and now ISO/IEC 14882:1998 (I hope). Only if I really feel the
need to show the tie in do I call these ISO/ANSI (never ANSI/ISO)
standards. I hope more people adopt similar habits.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com/hot_news.html



[ 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              ]

Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
> Rest assured that everybody agrees that having a C++ standard is
> important. Now that we have such a standard, we may as well avoid from the
> start the US centric practise of calling it ANSI C++. It may not matter
> much in practise, as you say, but why not call it ISO C++? This avoids a US
> bias, stresses the fact that the standard is truely international, and
> recognises contributions to the standardisation process from around the
> world.
Agreed. Methinks this is the "silly season": I propose standardising the
name
of the standard. Any suggestions which include a Scottish element gets
extra
marks from me.

Okay moderator, I know that this submission will be bounced...

[ mod note: Well, you are proposing standard terminology regarding
  the C++ standard, and I'd call that on-topic. :-)  -sdc ]

Mungo Henning ;-)


[ 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 <MWRon-0408981639330001@dyn1-tnt2-177.kalamazoo.mi.ameritech.net>,
MW Ron <MWRon@metrowerks.com> wrote:
<snip>
>What organization describes the standard does not matter.   The fact that
>a standards committee any standards committee has set certain normalities
>is what is important. Does it matter if the standard for a meter is set by
>a French organization or electromagnetic emissions are set by a Swedish
>group, or that the length of a day is set by an English group?
>

Ah, but since "the sun never sets on the British Empire", having
the length of a day set by a British group might be a bit
of a problem, wouldn't it?

;-)

Ken



[ 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 <6q7qjn$4ca@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng> wrote:
>
>ANSI asks for recommendations from the NCITS technical committees, but
>the actual members of ANSI vote on whether to accept proposed standards.

What I meant was that the right of those members to vote on the standard is
granted to them by ANSI.  Similarly if I had had the time to participate in
the standardization I would have needed the authorization of CSA to vote on
the standard.

--
Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@nortel.ca                   |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
Nortel (MCS) |                                      |  FAX:   (613) 763-5199


[ 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 <6q7qjn$4ca@engnews1.eng.sun.com>,
 clamage@Eng (Steve Clamage) writes:
> ANSI has yet to vote on whether to adopt the same standard as an
> American standard. (Administrative wheels are turning, and there

Thanks for the clarification.  If I understand you correctly, there
is currently no such thing as ANSI C++ or ISO/ANSI C++?  Rather the
correct term is ISO C++?  (I used the term ISO C++ just because I
think Amerika is so ethnocentric, I had no idea it was the also the
only technically correct term!  ;-)

Thanks

Peter



[ 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 <35c763ea.0@news.primary.net>,
Crazy Pete <peter.garner@toward.com> wrote:
>In article <6q7ev8$jso@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,
> "Jim Cobban" <Jim.Cobban.jcobban@nt.com> writes:
>> ANSI has no authority over me, nor over a lot of the participants in this
>> discussion.  I do appreciate that the majority of the actual participants in
>> the standards process may be operating under the ANSI banner.  But I
>> certainly would not expect to see a tutorial manual nor a compiler vendor
>> pushing CSA C++.
>
>CSA C++?  That WAS really funny!  ANSI and ISO are totally equivalent in
>terms of C++ standard.  Various national bodies voted to ratify the C++
>standard recently, and the US body was ANSI.  You will see ANSI C++, ISO
>C++ and ISO/ANSI C++ and they all mean the same thing.

The question is why mention ANSI at all when ANSI's only formal participation
is to ratify the IOS specification?

--
Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@nortel.ca                   |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
Nortel (MCS) |                                      |  FAX:   (613) 763-5199


[ 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              ]

Joachim Achtzehnter <joachim@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
: MWRon@metrowerks.com (MW Ron) wrote:
:>
:> What organization describes the standard does not matter.   The fact that
:> a standards committee any standards committee has set certain normalities
:> is what is important.

: Rest assured that everybody agrees that having a C++ standard is
: important. Now that we have such a standard, we may as well avoid from the
: start the US centric practise of calling it ANSI C++. It may not matter
: much in practise, as you say, but why not call it ISO C++? This avoids a US
: bias, stresses the fact that the standard is truely international, and
: recognises contributions to the standardisation process from around the
: world.

Why not just say Standard C++ then?  This group is comp.std.c++, not
comp.ansi.c++ or comp.iso.c++!


[ 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 <6q7qjn$4ca@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
  clamage@Eng wrote:
> ANSI has yet to vote on whether to adopt the same standard as an
> American standard. (Administrative wheels are turning, and there
> is a public comment period before voting takes place.)

If there is a public comment period, will they make the latest
ISO standard/ANSI draft standard available to the public for free,
so that those of us in the public can make more informed comments?

I appreciate the first two free public drafts, and I hope the
tradition continues.

-----== 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              ]

In article nh2@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca, "Jim Cobban" <Jim.Cobban.jcobban@nt.com> writes:
>
>The question is why mention ANSI at all when ANSI's only formal participation
>is to ratify the IOS specification?

That is not correct. ANSI (via the J16 committee) participated in
the creation of the ISO standard.

To keep coordination simple, the ISO WG21 committee delegated all the
technical work to J16, retaining administrative control. (In principle,
that could lead to a real mess, but in reality everyone wanted to work
by consensus, so it worked out very well.) Thus, you might say that
ANSI created the C++ standard, and ISO's only formal participation
was to ratify the ANSI specifications!

The truth, however, is that the standard was a joint ISO/ANSI effort.
That status was formalized by the status of the J16 committee as
a "Type I" (International) committee, with that exact charter: to
create in conjunction with ISO a standard that could be adopted
unchanged as an American standard.

---
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              ]

In article 1@nnrp1.dejanews.com, AllanW@my-dejanews.com writes:
>In article <6q7qjn$4ca@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>  clamage@Eng wrote:
>> ANSI has yet to vote on whether to adopt the same standard as an
>> American standard. (Administrative wheels are turning, and there
>> is a public comment period before voting takes place.)
>
>If there is a public comment period, will they make the latest
>ISO standard/ANSI draft standard available to the public for free,
>so that those of us in the public can make more informed comments?
>
>I appreciate the first two free public drafts, and I hope the
>tradition continues.

The public comment period ran from 05/22/98 to 07/21/98, and I don't
believe that free copies were available. The C++ committee
begged for permission to make the interim public-comment docs freely
available. The interim versions are not the standard, and permission
was granted. In this case, the doc is the actual standard.

The C++ committee wanted free copies of the interim docs to get
as much feedback as possible. But comments from this last public-
comment period are not especially valuable. There is no way to
make use of them. The ISO Defect Report mechanism is the only useful
way to handle comments on the standard, and operates independently
of ANSI public-comment periods.

That is, ANSI is obliged to solicit public comments before adopting
a standard. The comments have an effect only if there is a strong
outcry against adopting the standard, since ANSI's own technical
committee (J16) recommended adoption. There isn't any mechanism to
deal with comments that point out errors or make suggestions for
changes, since the standard is finished.

When the ISO Defect Report mechanism is established, it will be
announced here and in other places. Anyone can then submit comments
and suggestions which will be evaluated, and which could possibly
become part of a Technical Corrigendum. (Note: a TC involves only
correction of minor errors or clarification of ambiguous language.
No major changes and no additions are allowed.)

---
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              ]

Jim Cobban wrote:
>
>
> The question is why mention ANSI at all when ANSI's only formal participation
> is to ratify the IOS specification?

Because that's not the case. The ANSI C++ working group is the technical
advisor to the ISO C++ committee. At the joint meetings the first vote
taken on technical issues is among ANSI members, and with their advice,
the next vote is among ISO members. ISO members other than the US are
not bound by the ANSI vote.

--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.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              ]

While I understand that there was an ANSI standard for C for some
considerable period before there was an ISO standard for it, that does not
appear to be true for C++.  ANSI is simply one of the national standards
through which various individuals and corporations are authorized to
participate in the ISO standards process.

Therefore why do almost all tutorial references and product advertising
refer constantly to ANSI C++?

ANSI has no authority over me, nor over a lot of the participants in this
discussion.  I do appreciate that the majority of the actual participants in
the standards process may be operating under the ANSI banner.  But I
certainly would not expect to see a tutorial manual nor a compiler vendor
pushing CSA C++.
--
Jim Cobban   |  jcobban@nortel.ca                   |  Phone: (613) 763-8013
Nortel (MCS) |                                      |  FAX:   (613) 763-5199


[ 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              ]