In article ya023180000210961229210001@news.inow.com, mike_duigou@fwb.com (Mike Duigou) writes:
>  I've been watching this group religiously for the last couple of weeks
>hoping to hear something about the ANSI C++ Draft which was promised for
>September. The April 1995 Draft is rather obsolete, and if it weren't
>electronic my copy would be rather thumbworn. :-). Any sign of it down the
>pipe?

The September draft is being distributed to the members of the C++
Committee. It is not a draft for public comment. If you are not a member
of the Committee, you can find out more about this subject by consulting
the FAQ below.

---
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
]

In article <xsoiv8tgje8.fsf@juicer.cs.rpi.edu>,
David Vandevoorde <vandevod@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>There were indeed high hopes that a second committee draft (CD) could
>be emitted after the July 1996 Stockholm meeting of the ISO+ANSI
>committees. However, some of the changes introduced at that meeting
>(e.g., a new keyword `export') were deemed too significant to consider
>the DWP stable enough for CD status. As a result, it was decided to
>wait at least until the November meeting before voting out CD2.
>
David,
That's being a bit of a tease isn't it :)
Could you (or someone) enlighten the rest of us about what 'export'
is for?

Along the same lines, is there a summary anywhere of the major
changes to the language (or at least proposed changes) that have
been introduced since the last public draft? Some of us are
curious about what's going on.

mark




[ 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                             ]

>>>>> "MB" == Mark Beall <beallm@rcs-1.scorec.rpi.edu> writes:

MB> In article <xsoiv8tgje8.fsf@juicer.cs.rpi.edu>,
MB> David Vandevoorde <vandevod@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> (e.g., a new keyword `export') were deemed too significant to consider
[...]
MB> David,
MB> That's being a bit of a tease isn't it :)

Perhaps a bit, yes ;^P

MB> Could you (or someone) enlighten the rest of us about what 'export'
MB> is for?

The whole story is rather long and has to do with delicate issues
around the template compilation model. Basically, it was decided to
help the compiler in the decision as to which templates (and
definitions they depend upon) it should ``remember beyond the current
translation unit''. Hence, if you say:

 template<typename T>
 struct Stack<T> {
   // ...
 };

The template is not visible outside the translation unit in which
is appears. However, if you write:

 export template<typename T>
 struct Stack<T> {
   // ...
 };

then it _is_ visible externally (and the world of `separate template
compilation' opens up). Despite this visible/nonvisible issue,
template definitions should still obey the ODR.

Originally, it was proposed that the keyword `extern' be used for this
purpose --- I think that would have been a good idea, but I suppose
there were good reasons for not doing so.

MB> Along the same lines, is there a summary anywhere of the major
MB> changes to the language (or at least proposed changes) that have
MB> been introduced since the last public draft? Some of us are
MB> curious about what's going on.

I don't know of any. Although there were many changes since April 95,
I think their impact on existing code is relatively limited as far as
the core language is concerned. I think even in the standard library
care was taken to avoid breaking existing code badly (beyond what got
broken by pre-CD1 changes).

 Daveed


[ 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                             ]

>>>>> David Vandevoorde <vandevod@cs.rpi.edu> writes:

> I don't know of any. Although there were many changes since April 95,
> I think their impact on existing code is relatively limited as far as
> the core language is concerned.

One that caught my attention was

  template <class T> struct A
  {
    T t;
  };

  template <> struct A<int>
  {
    char *t;
  };

I believe the template<> is now required for all specializations.

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
]

  I've been watching this group religiously for the last couple of weeks
hoping to hear something about the ANSI C++ Draft which was promised for
September. The April 1995 Draft is rather obsolete, and if it weren't
electronic my copy would be rather thumbworn. :-). Any sign of it down the
pipe?

  I couldn't find any web sites which had it using Lycos or Alta Vista.
Best I could do was an HTML version of the Jan1996 Working Group Draft and
a marked up for review version of the April95 draft. The FAQ also makes no
mention of anything beyond the April96 Draft.

Mike Duigou
FWB Software LLC.
--
"Me, when I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed." -- Talking Heads
---
[ 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
]

>>>>> "MD" == Mike Duigou <mike_duigou@fwb.com> writes:
MD>   I've been watching this group religiously for the last couple of
MD> weeks hoping to hear something about the ANSI C++ Draft which was
MD> promised for September. The April 1995 Draft is rather obsolete,
MD> and if it weren't electronic my copy would be rather
MD> thumbworn. :-). Any sign of it down the pipe?
[...]

There were indeed high hopes that a second committee draft (CD) could
be emitted after the July 1996 Stockholm meeting of the ISO+ANSI
committees. However, some of the changes introduced at that meeting
(e.g., a new keyword `export') were deemed too significant to consider
the DWP stable enough for CD status. As a result, it was decided to
wait at least until the November meeting before voting out CD2.

There were also plans to use the inter-meeting period in such a way
that CD2 would be available earlier than the usual 2 months or so
after the meeting that votes it out. I do not know if these plans
still exist; otherwise CD2 could be a New Year's present (in the
Western calendar). Of course, it is also possible that the Hawaii
meeting in November concludes that the DWP is still not in a good
enough shape for CD2, which would cause additional slip.

 Daveed
---
[ 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
]