lars.farm@ite.mh.se (Lars Farm) writes:

|>  James Kanze <james-albert.kanze@vx.cit.alcatel.fr> wrote:
|>
|>  > Most C++ programmers will, in fact, never need to see the
|>  > standard.  (It's not the most lively reading I know of.)
|>
|>  Currently it is the only reliable source for the language specification.
|>  There are things not mentioned elsewhere. It is true that few needs to
|>  read the draft from cover to cover, but many of us would like to read
|>  selected sections of special interest and perhaps browse other parts to
|>  see if anything changed. With the current state of compilers one also
|>  needs a reference.

First, to clarify a point.  I was, of course, speaking of the future.  I
can well imagine why a serious C++ programmer today would want to know
what is in store for him.

Once the draft has become a standard, however, and compilers and
textbooks start conforming, I don't think that it will be nearly as
interesting (unless you are writing a compiler).  Obviously, it will
remain the final authority in case of questions, and there will probably
be some exotic points that won't be covered in more general textbooks.
But a serious programmer would probably want to avoid such shady corners
of the language anyway, regardless of what the standard says.

Even today, the interest in the drafts is to prepare for the future.  In
production code, I try and stick rigorously to the ARM.  In cases where
the ARM is ambiguous or unclear, I try and write the program
differently, to avoid such cases.  In cases where I know that the
standard will contradict the ARM (e.g.: scope of variable declared in
for), I try and write my code so that it will work both ways.

|>  Perhaps c.std.c++ could be used to dissipate some excerpts from the
|>  draft as answers to explicit questions. I don't think this would violate
|>  copyright. If this is a reasonable idea then my requests for info would
|>  start with...

Good idea.  In addition to your list, I'd also like to know about
<locale>.  Not just word for word what the standard says, but how it is
supposed to work/be used.  (I can usually figure this out from the
standard, but it takes time, and I'm sure that there are people who
already have the answers.)

|>  > To give a simple example: I'll bet that you don't have a copy of the
|>  > document that defines the standard kilogram at your home.
|>
|>  Not a copy of the actual document, but this definition is taught to all
|>  in school and is in any elementary book on physics, etc... Well known
|>  and not a secret.

Really.  I haven't the vaguest idea what the "official" definition is.
I know that the original definition was the mass of one liter of water;
I feel sure that this is not the current "official" definition, however.
I have seen the "standard" definition of a second, at the USNO site, and
I can tell you that 1) it is actually fairly advanced physics, and 2) it
is much less useful to me than the folklorish definition: 1/86400 of a
day.

|>  >  On the other
|>  > hand, you are probably quite happy that all of the butcher shops in your
|>  > neighborhood use the same definition of a kilogram when they are
|>  > weighing the meat.
|>
|>  The problem is that currently all our 'butchers' each appear to use
|>  different versions of the kilogram definition and therefor we'd like to
|>  see what it really should be.

Except that I, personally, am not equiped to do this, so I have to count
on an official body to do it for me.  (And of course, the official body
must know the standard definition, or something very close to it.)

With regards to C++ compilers, the standard will encourage compiler
vendors to approxamate it as far as possible, but in the end, what is
most useful to you is what will work with the compilers you use, and not
what the standard says.  (Hopefully, of course, the difference between
the two will be minimal.)

--
James Kanze      home:     kanze@gabi-soft.fr        +33 (0)1 39 55 85 62
                 office:   kanze@vx.cit.alcatel.fr   +33 (0)1 69 63 14 54
GABI Software, Sarl., 22 rue Jacques-Lemercier, F-78000 Versailles France
     -- Conseils en informatique industrielle --


[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

In article <5bd5bi$9jb@oban.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
Anthony Staines <A.Staines@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> The C++ standard is interesting, in parts anyway, to quite a few
>people, myself included. I found the earlier (free) drafts helpful and
>valuable, and I don't think that $50 is excessive for the latest one.
>It's ceratinly a lot cheaper than much of the official paper which I
>have to purchase in my work!
>
>Having said that I'll probably buy the final version, rather than this
>draft.
> Regards,
> Anthony Staines.

I would to add my voice in requesting that ANSI/ISO produce electronic
versions of the draft, or if not the draft, the final standard.

The first committee draft is VERY  convenient to browse; much more so than
a paper edition.


Is the reason behind a lack of electronically-browsable standards
documents the difficulty of transcribing and hyperlinking the things, or
concerns that electronic versions are much easier to pirate?  (Or is it
merely a lack of action by those in ANSI/ISO in charge of such matters?)

Scott


--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Scott Johnson -- Professional (sometimes) SW Engineer and all-purpose Geek|
|I don't speak for nobody but myself, which everyone else is thankful for  |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
---
[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

>>>>> Scott Johnson <sj@aracnet.com> writes:

> Is the reason behind a lack of electronically-browsable standards
> documents the difficulty of transcribing and hyperlinking the things

No, the HTML is produced mechanically from the troff source and is available
to committee members.  I imagine the reason is simply that ANSI is not set
up to sell such things.  Perhaps they can be prodded into doing so.

Jason
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

In article <5bd5bi$9jb@oban.cc.ic.ac.uk>,
Anthony Staines <A.Staines@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>       The C++ standard is interesting, in parts anyway, to quite a few
> people, myself included. I found the earlier (free) drafts helpful and
> valuable, and I don't think that $50 is excessive for the latest one.
> It's ceratinly a lot cheaper than much of the official paper which I
> have to purchase in my work!

Could someone In The Know give us outsiders a rough idea/SWAG of:

(1) How much the final version is likely to cost? Judging by the prices
I've heard quoted for the C standard, I assume it will be substantially
higher than the US$50 for the draft.

(2) Realistically, how much difference would you expect there to be
between this draft and the final standard? (Translation: If I'm
cheapskate enough to buy the draft and not the final standard, how many
marginal annotations will I need to make? :-)

--
Ross Smith <mailto:ross.smith@nz.eds.com> ...... Wellington, New Zealand
     "I'm as interested as anybody else in all the things no decent
     person would be interested in."          -- Ashleigh Brilliant
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

sj@aracnet.com (Scott Johnson) writes:

>I would to add my voice in requesting that ANSI/ISO produce electronic
>versions of the draft, or if not the draft, the final standard.

The ANSI/ISO C++ committee have been producing electronic versions
for use by committee members and will continue to do so; I'm sure they'll
produce an electronic version of the final standard too.

The unavailability of these versions to the general public is due to
ISO policy, as Steve Clamage has explained.

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

 The C++ standard is interesting, in parts anyway, to quite a few
people, myself included. I found the earlier (free) drafts helpful and
valuable, and I don't think that $50 is excessive for the latest one.
It's ceratinly a lot cheaper than much of the official paper which I
have to purchase in my work!

Having said that I'll probably buy the final version, rather than this
draft.
 Regards,
 Anthony Staines.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

James Kanze <james-albert.kanze@vx.cit.alcatel.fr> wrote:

> Most C++ programmers will, in fact, never need to see the
> standard.  (It's not the most lively reading I know of.)

Currently it is the only reliable source for the language specification.
There are things not mentioned elsewhere. It is true that few needs to
read the draft from cover to cover, but many of us would like to read
selected sections of special interest and perhaps browse other parts to
see if anything changed. With the current state of compilers one also
needs a reference.

Perhaps c.std.c++ could be used to dissipate some excerpts from the
draft as answers to explicit questions. I don't think this would violate
copyright. If this is a reasonable idea then my requests for info would
start with...

- separate compilation of templates (export?)

given a chance I'd also take a look at...

- the container lib class definitions. To see what members
  are in this time - for instance I think that assign,clear
  have been in and out in various WPs since the first draft.

- the current function declarations for distance, count
  (mentioned in a recent C++ report) and possibly others that
  have changed since April-95.

- the iterator hierarchy

- class definitions of pair, allocator and auto_ptr


> To give a simple example: I'll bet that you don't have a copy of the
> document that defines the standard kilogram at your home.

Not a copy of the actual document, but this definition is taught to all
in school and is in any elementary book on physics, etc... Well known
and not a secret.

>  On the other
> hand, you are probably quite happy that all of the butcher shops in your
> neighborhood use the same definition of a kilogram when they are
> weighing the meat.

The problem is that currently all our 'butchers' each appear to use
different versions of the kilogram definition and therefor we'd like to
see what it really should be.


--
Lars Farm, lars.farm@ite.mh.se
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

In article 1444197@news.ma.ultranet.com, phalpern@truffle.ma.ultranet.com (Pablo Halpern) writes:
>The comp.std.c++ FAQ says:
>
>2.Where can I get a copy of the working paper?
>
>  The current public-comment version of the draft, December 1996, is
>  available for $50.00 (plus shipping, handling, & tax) from:
>  ...
>
>  Although the previous public-comment version of the draft standard was
>  publicly posted at an FTP site, current ISO and ANSI policy is that
>  copies of the draft are freely available only to members (and member
>  organizations) of the C++ Committee.
>
>Two comments/questions:
>
>1. How much is shipping and handling? I can't very well order my copy of
>the draft if I don't know how much money to send. And what about tax?
>Are only NY residents affected by the tax?

You will have to ask the people at ANSI. When I get more data
I'll add it to the FAQ.


>2. Why the policy of now allowing freely-available electronic versions
>of the draft? I doubt that selling the draft is much of a money making
>operation, so the only reason I can see for not making it freely
>available on The Net is that they want to limit comments to people who
>have the money and inclination to buy a hard-copy. This seems a bit
>elitist to me.

ANSI policy was always that copies of the draft must be purchased. It
is in fact a major source of their funding.

In 1995 ISO changed their policy (temporarily, as it turns out) and
allowed draft copies to be freely posted. (Support for that change
was not universal, by any means.) In effect, WG21 and not X3J16 made
the previous public-comment draft freely available. At the moment
there is no such loophole.

As I understand it, there are two major arguments against making
draft copies freely available:
1. Selling copies of standards is a major source of funding for
standards bodies.
2. Committee members who work on the standard pay for the privilege
of doing so. X3J16 members pay $600 per year for membership, and the
cost of attending each meeting is around $1000 to $2000 per person not
counting the cost of lost productivity on their regular jobs. Why should
non-members get for free what costs the committee members so much?

An obvious rebuttal: "We are not talking about the final standard,
but only drafts. Charge for the standards if you must, but allow the
drafts to be given away."

A counter-rebuttal: "Everybody knows that by definition the final
standard doesn't differ importantly from the last draft, so no one
will buy the final standard."

Not everyone finds these arguments compelling. The topic is under
discussion at ISO, but I have been assured that no change in policy
will occur before the end of the public comment period for the C++
draft standard.

I asked whether ANSI could make available a CD-ROM version in addition
to (or even instead of) paper copies. They don't seem to be set up
for that as yet.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

>I asked whether ANSI could make available a CD-ROM version in addition
>to (or even instead of) paper copies. They don't seem to be set up
>for that as yet.

I wish they were. For me, the availability of electronic versions isn't
important for cost considerations, its important because you can *search*
the electronic version, something you can't do with the $#@! paper ones :-).


[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

In article <199701031859.KAA01139@taumet.eng.sun.com>
stephen.clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:

>  As I understand it, there are two major arguments against making
>  draft copies freely available:

>  1. Selling copies of standards is a major source of funding for
>  standards bodies.

But what's the purpose of creating a standard if few can afford to see
it?  The prices charged are very high, even compared with engineering
texts.  For example, ANSI charges $130 for the C standard.  (About 250
pages, but very plain typesetting compared with textbooks and no
pictures.)

An obvious counter-rebuttal: "Companies selling compilers can afford
to purchase copies of the standard."

A counter-counter-rebuttal: "Companies selling compilers generally
are members of the standards committee and can afford to pay
membership fees several times higher than the current fees."  Could
higher membership fees provide sufficient revenue?  If so, then
perhaps standards should be distributed at cost.

>  2. Committee members who work on the standard pay for the privilege
>  of doing so. X3J16 members pay $600 per year for membership, and the
>  cost of attending each meeting is around $1000 to $2000 per person not
>  counting the cost of lost productivity on their regular jobs. Why should
>  non-members get for free what costs the committee members so much?

Would committee members really prefer that anyone who shows up at a
meeting be allowed to participate without paying any fee?  I suspect
that the fees may be necessary to avoid having committee work hampered
by crackpots.

Jeff


[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

Jeffrey C. Gealow wrote:

> A counter-counter-rebuttal: "Companies selling compilers generally
> are members of the standards committee and can afford to pay
> membership fees several times higher than the current fees."  Could
> higher membership fees provide sufficient revenue?  If so, then
> perhaps standards should be distributed at cost.

Spare a thought then for the many, many members of the committee who
represent small companies -- in my case a one man company -- who pay the
$600 and then count the cost of about $12-15K per annum in real costs:
cost of attending meetings, lost revenue etc etc.

> I suspect
> that the fees may be necessary to avoid having committee work hampered
> by crackpots.

The UK panel (IST/5/-/21) operates with BSI support and charges its
members no fees. Participation is notionally "by invitation of the
convenor" but in practice anyone can join. Whether we would have our job
made harder by "crackpots" is an interesting, but presently moot, point.

As an active member of X3J16 (and currently its secretary) I don't have
any personal objection to the WP being electronically available but I
get annoyed by some of the requests I get by email for the WP which then
criticise the *committee* because the WP is *not* publically available.
--
Sean A Corfield                                  phone/sms:+44385758805
Object Consultancy Services Ltd                       fax:+441252654077
Object technology and C++ Specialists             http://www.ocsltd.com
mailto:ocs@ocsltd.com    --    or    --    mailto:seanocs@airmail.co.uk


[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

 +---- stephen.clamage@Eng.Sun.COM wrote (03 Jan 1997 12:48:10 PST):
 | As I understand it, there are two major arguments against making
 | draft copies freely available:
 | 1. Selling copies of standards is a major source of funding for
 | standards bodies.
 | 2. Committee members who work on the standard pay for the privilege
 | of doing so. X3J16 members pay $600 per year for membership, and the
 | cost of attending each meeting is around $1000 to $2000 per person not
 | counting the cost of lost productivity on their regular jobs. Why should
 | non-members get for free what costs the committee members so much?
 +----

2. sounds a bit like having cake while eating it too, in the
light of the old 'if you want current drafts join the committee'
chestnut.  Especially to those not sheltered under a corporate
wing.

I guess I was naive when I thought standards were about
promoting common behaviour.  Has anyone looked at starting an
electronically based standards body?

--
Gary Johnson                                                          "Wahoo."
gjohnson@season.com    <a href="http://www.marijuana.org/">Remember why...</a>
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

stephen.clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:

>I asked whether ANSI could make available a CD-ROM version in addition
>to (or even instead of) paper copies. They don't seem to be set up
>for that as yet.

Standards Australia sell Australian standards on CD-ROM;
I don't know whether they can provide ISO standards on CD-ROM,
but for those interested, they may be worth trying.

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

gjohnson@dream.season.com (Reality is a point of view) writes:
>
> Has anyone looked at starting an electronically based standards
> body?

Well, there's the IETF....

Hey, that's not a bad idea ... let's turn the whole C++ spec into an
Internet RFC!  Who wants to write the "Security Considerations"
section?

{giggle}
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]