jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:

>Then once the standard
>is "approved", a *few* individuals can make large sums of money selling
>software which is ultimately the goal of all of this... :)

...and the rest of us fools can make more moderate sums of money by
carrying workable expertise from compiler to compiler and from
platform to platform without tripping over gratuitous
incompatabilities.

...and the rest of us fools can save money by not becoming locked into
a one-vendor language dialect, because when that one vendor croaks we
are not be forced to pay dearly to reimplement in a language which can
be obtained in quality implementations from a number of vendors.

--
Richard Krehbiel, rich@kastle.com

In article <3olmu0$hgn@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
> 3. The ANSI process can be "short-circuited".

The short-circuiting was only suggested for editorial corrections, not
technical comments.  ANSI is much less rigid about the procedures for
editorial changes.  The committee is allowed to make non-technical
corrections to the draft without getting public approval.  So Andrew's
suggestion was that corrections of typoes be sent directly to him; they can
then be corrected as if they'd been found during proofreading rather than
as part of the public review.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
barmar@bbnplanet.com

In article <3opgnk$mn7@tools.near.net>, barmar@nic.near.net says...
>
>In article <3olmu0$hgn@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>       3. The ANSI process can be "short-circuited".
>
>The short-circuiting was only suggested for editorial corrections, not
>technical comments.  ANSI is much less rigid about the procedures for
>editorial changes.  The committee is allowed to make non-technical
>corrections to the draft without getting public approval.  So Andrew's
>suggestion was that corrections of typoes be sent directly to him; they can
>then be corrected as if they'd been found during proofreading rather than
>as part of the public review.
>--
>Barry Margolin

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You make a good point. Thanks for the clarification. Now that the standard
is "out of the labs", anyone (including Andrew) would be a fool to try to
make a major change.

The "deals" have been cut long ago, now the standards committee just needs
to lay low and hope there are no public comments. Then once the standard
is "approved", a *few* individuals can make large sums of money selling
software which is ultimately the goal of all of this... :)

...just think, *most* of the C++ books will require second editions... :)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

The subject says it all...

Thanks,

--
Michael Greenberg                      email: mgreenberg@scr.siemens.com
Siemens Corporate Research             phone: 609-734-3347
755 College Road East                  fax: 609-734-6565
Princeton, NJ 08540

Officially, the thing to do is wait until the committee has announced
how to submit a public comment and then follow the public comment procedure.
You will have until late July to do so -- the exact date is yet to be
determined.

Unofficially, you can send me email directly.  If I don't get
overloaded with such requests, I will try to fix the typos
and thereby short-circuit the official procedure, which is likely
to be more cumbersome.  I will send acknowledgments for errors
I fix, which means that if you get mail back from me saying `fixed'
or something like that, you can probably trust that I've done the
right thing.  If you don't get an acknowledgment back, or you want
to keep me honest, submit an official comment anyway--though it would
be nice to say that you sent it to me and I said I had dealt with it.

If I do get overloaded with requests, I'll have to stop answering
them -- in which case you'll have to revert to the official procedure.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <D89pCI.Lz7@research.att.com>, ark@research.att.com says...
>
>Officially, the thing to do is wait until the committee has announced
>how to submit a public comment and then follow the public comment
procedure.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The ANSI process is an "official" process...should not that be followed?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>You will have until late July to do so -- the exact date is yet to be
>determined.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is unreal, an ANSI standard has been released for public comment and
the procedure for making the public comments has not been determined...?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


@@@@@@@@ NOW WE GET TO THE REAL WAY THE ANSI PROCESS WORKS @@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Unofficially, you can send me email directly.  If I don't get
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>overloaded with such requests, I will try to fix the typos
>and thereby short-circuit the official procedure, which is likely
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to be more cumbersome.  I will send acknowledgments for errors
>I fix, which means that if you get mail back from me saying `fixed'
>or something like that, you can probably trust that I've done the
>right thing.  If you don't get an acknowledgment back, or you want
>to keep me honest, submit an official comment anyway--though it would
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be nice to say that you sent it to me and I said I had dealt with it.
>
>If I do get overloaded with requests, I'll have to stop answering
>them -- in which case you'll have to revert to the official procedure.
>--
>                                --Andrew Koenig
>                                  ark@research.att.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

BTW, for those people claming that premises are wrong...

 1. It appears that AT&T does have a vested "interest".
 2. It is clear that there are "unofficial" procedures.
 3. The ANSI process can be "short-circuited".

...and we have not even gotten to the "good parts" yet... :)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
jrf@tiger.bytes.com  /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
%Techno Cat I       /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       http:199.3.34.13 telnet: port 5555
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|