In article <3thggj$7jm@hermes.synopsys.com>, jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)
wrote:

> My "diatribe" was entirely relevant: it was an evaluation of a proposal to
> change the C++ standard.  That's what this group was for.  The last
> sentence was unduly harsh, though it was correct in essence: the original
> poster has more to learn about the C++ language before proposing such
> major changes at such a late date.  I could have expressed myself more
> diplomatically.

Your criticism was based on *your* misunderstanding of the proposal.  You
shot down proposal (2) based on the misguided belief that it was to be
applied to non-static virtual functions.  The example you gave to prove
your point didn't even have the keyword "static" in it (as I recall); I
would contend that that renders it at least marginally relevant.

>
> >And people wonder how Jim Fleming could arrive at his paranoid opinion of
> >the C++ standardization effort.
>
> How does this follow?  I'm not on the committee.  All I am is a C++ user
> that wants a standard this millenium, and would be quite happy to see no
> more changes, except for correction of major defects.  If you want to get
> paranoid because of my articles, feel free.
>

As a proponent of the proposal in question, I took offense at your
personal attacks on the competence of the proposer (and again, at your
statement above).  There is not much more for me to learn about C++; I
know full well that virtual functions can't resolved to the most derived
class during base class construction; I know why that limitation exists.
I am also competent enough to see that this point does not apply to
"static virtual" (and as such, is the sole reason I'm in favor of the
proposal).

It does not behoove the C++ community as a whole to have members of that
community (particularly the better-known members, such as yourself) making
personal attacks on the professional competence of those who should be so
uppity as to suggest that there might still be worthwhile things to add to
the language.  To do so reinforces at least some of the wild-assed
accusations that Fleming has implied: that the standard is a done deal and
that the committee is too close-knit and not really interested in hearing
the voices of outsiders.  My allusion to Fleming was primarily a
rhetorical device to draw attention to the fact that we should strive for
a bit more reasonable, civil, and respectful tone in our discussions.

The fact that you're not on the committee provides little consolation.  It
would be nice if somebody on the committee had spoken up in opposition to
your statement and especially its tone.  Were I on the committee, I would
have said "I think Mr. Buck missed some subtleties in your proposal and
perhaps overreacted.  The committee wishes to assure all C++ users that we
want to hear your opinions and we won't be so judgemental about your
competence if you should differ with us on some minor points (especially
if you're the one who is right)."

> >  Personally, I prefer Mr. Fleming's flames
> >to ones such as this. His at least have some entertainment value.
>
> Suit yourself.

Thank you, I shall try.

Bill

>
>
> --
> -- Joe Buck     <jbuck@synopsys.com>    (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
> Anagrams for "information superhighway":        Enormous hairy pig with fan
>                                                 A rough whimper of insanity

bill_law@taligent.com (William A. Law) writes:
>In article <3t2cl4$2mg@hermes.synopsys.com>, jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)
>wrote:
>
>[an irrelevant and unwarranted diatribe, which I don't think worthy of
>repeating]

My "diatribe" was entirely relevant: it was an evaluation of a proposal to
change the C++ standard.  That's what this group was for.  The last
sentence was unduly harsh, though it was correct in essence: the original
poster has more to learn about the C++ language before proposing such
major changes at such a late date.  I could have expressed myself more
diplomatically.

>And people wonder how Jim Fleming could arrive at his paranoid opinion of
>the C++ standardization effort.

How does this follow?  I'm not on the committee.  All I am is a C++ user
that wants a standard this millenium, and would be quite happy to see no
more changes, except for correction of major defects.  If you want to get
paranoid because of my articles, feel free.

>  Personally, I prefer Mr. Fleming's flames
>to ones such as this. His at least have some entertainment value.

Suit yourself.


--
-- Joe Buck  <jbuck@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Anagrams for "information superhighway": Enormous hairy pig with fan
      A rough whimper of insanity

jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:

>bill_law@taligent.com (William A. Law) writes:
>>In article <3t2cl4$2mg@hermes.synopsys.com>, jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)
>>wrote:
>>
>>[an irrelevant and unwarranted diatribe, which I don't think worthy of
>>repeating]

>My "diatribe" was entirely relevant: it was an evaluation of a proposal to
>change the C++ standard.  That's what this group was for.  The last
>sentence was unduly harsh, though it was correct in essence: the original
>poster has more to learn about the C++ language before proposing such
>major changes at such a late date.  I could have expressed myself more
>diplomatically.

>>And people wonder how Jim Fleming could arrive at his paranoid opinion of
>>the C++ standardization effort.

>How does this follow?  I'm not on the committee.  All I am is a C++ user
>that wants a standard this millenium, and would be quite happy to see no
>more changes, except for correction of major defects.  If you want to get
>paranoid because of my articles, feel free.

This change, now that I understand it quit nearly approaches fixing a
major problem in C++ category.  It adds some generalization so learning
one feature helps you to learn another feature. (A BIG C++ problem)
Also it works on the `C++ persistent object problem'

Please if we can let's make C++ a nice language that we can use easily
for most things instead of a clunker that does most things fairly easily.

Anyhow by rejecting this out of hand you fuel the reality behind Flemings
comments that C++ needs to pay up, and it can't.  I say let's make it work.
I would prefer to have to wait a little longer for a standard and have a
good solid product, then to get it faster and need to have a revamp next
year, or have to design a new language to get out all of the bugs.

Are you a compiler writer by any chance.  They are the ones who this will
drive nuts the most, trying to get a jump on the standard, and wanting it
done before it really is done.

>>  Personally, I prefer Mr. Fleming's flames
>>to ones such as this. His at least have some entertainment value.

>Suit yourself.


>--
>-- Joe Buck  <jbuck@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
>Anagrams for "information superhighway": Enormous hairy pig with fan
>      A rough whimper of insanity

In article <3t2cl4$2mg@hermes.synopsys.com>, jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)
wrote:

[an irrelevant and unwarranted diatribe, which I don't think worthy of
repeating]

And people wonder how Jim Fleming could arrive at his paranoid opinion of
the C++ standardization effort.  Personally, I prefer Mr. Fleming's flames
to ones such as this. His at least have some entertainment value.

Bill Law