Steve Clamage wrote:
[snip]
> If you don't like the process, you could work with your national
> standards body to try to get the process changed. Many of us on
> standards committees dislike parts of the process, but don't have
> the option of ignoring the rules. We have had limited success in
> getting some procedures changed.

The fact that CD1 and CD2 were freely available for view on the
Internet constitutes a lot more than "limited success" in my view!
The people who managed to accomplish that change in procedures
should be canonized.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mark Nelson - markn@tiny.com - http://web2.airmail.net/markn      |
| See my crossword on the DDJ web site: http://www.ddj.com/crosswd/ |
| Addisoft Consulting : http://www.addisoft.com                     |
| The Web's best teen-zine: http://www.technoteen.com/teen/idiot    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
---
[ 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              ]

Mark Nelson <markn@tiny.com> wrote:
>The fact that CD1 and CD2 were freely available for view on the
>Internet constitutes a lot more than "limited success" in my view!
>The people who managed to accomplish that change in procedures
>should be canonized.

Perhaps so, but we'd have to kill them first.  Perhaps they can
just be lauded, instead, for now.

--
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              ]

In article 2529570@news.ma.ultranet.com, phalpern@truffle.ma.ultranet.com (Pablo Halpern) writes:
>Can anybody on the Standards committee give a brief description of what
>changed between CD-2 and FDIS?  I heard that auto_ptr<> is more similar
>to CD-1 than to CD-2. I also heard that basic_string<> has changed, but
>I don't know in what way.

I don't know of any easy way to characterize the differences. The
FDIS will be available soon, and you can get a copy and look for
yourself. I'll have more to say about this topic at the end of this
rather long article. Most of what I have to say is already in the
FAQ for comp.std.c++.

>I also have a question about the process. I thought that only minor
>changes were to be considered between CD-2 and FDIS, so I'm surprised to
>hear of significant changes like those mentioned above.  Also, if FDIS
>was already approved, then what does it mean to have an FDIS ballot? Has
>FDIS balloting already begun? If so, is it possible for the public to
>get a copy of the FDIS?

The second CD (actually a Final Committee Draft, or FCD) was issued for
comments from the public and from ISO national bodies. The Committee is
required to consider and respond to all comments. Comments from ISO
national bodies often involve matters which could cause the national body
to vote against the draft. The Committee modifies the FCD as appropriate
to address such concerns, to the extent possible. (Each change also runs
the risk of a "No" vote from a body that liked the draft the way
it was.)

The FDIS (Final Draft International Standard) satisfies the Committee
and should result in final acceptance by ISO member nations. The acid
test is whether (1) the ISO executive agrees that all requirements
have been met, including not making excessive changes to the FCD, and
(2) whether the member nations in fact vote to accept the FDIS.

If the ISO executive said the FDIS differed unreasonably from the FCD,
we would have to go back to CD status. That didn't happen.