In article <DEC.95Apr19213109@john.gsl.com>,
Douglas Clinton <dec@gsl.com> wrote:
++ (I can't believe I finally succumbed to responding to a Jim Fleming
++ message)

Reading a Fleming post is a fascinating phenomenon.  It's sort of like
driving past a horrible traffic accident on the freeway -- you can't
help but sneak a look at the carnage left behind.

On a positive note, dealing with Fleming has given me new appreciation
for Ron Guilmette's tact (hi Ron ;-)).

 Doug
--
Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt    (schmidt@cs.wustl.edu)
Department of Computer Science, Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130. Work #: (314) 935-7538; FAX #: (314) 935-7302
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/

matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>So far, Ron and I have both volunteered to be moderators.  Two moderators
>would probably be enough, since comp.std.c++ ought to be a low-volume
>group, but it would be nice to have one or two more.  Would anyone
>else like to volunteer?  Please?

I'd be happy to volunteer, presuming we can overcome the potential
technical problem posed by the slow newsfeed here (I received Matt
Austern's article 15 days after it was posted!).

>Charters of unmoderated newsgroups aren't all that important, but for
>moderated newsgroups we really do have to come up with sensible
>charters to give the moderators some guidance.  I'd suggest something
>like this (improvements on my wording are welcome, of course):
>
>    comp.std.c++ is for technical announcements and discussion of the
>    ANSI/ISO C++ standardization process and the forthcoming C++
>    standard.  Other discussion that is directly related to the C++
>    standard (not just to C++ programming) is also welcome.  Questions
>    about C++ programming techniques, though, should instead be posted
>    to comp.lang.c++, and questions that are specific to some
>    particular platform should be posted to a group devoted to that
>    platform.
>
>Your thoughts?

What exactly does "... technical announcements and discussion of the
ANSI/ISO C++ standardization process ..." mean?  The announcements have
to be technical, but the discussion doesn't?  How can
announcements/discussion about the standardization _process_ (as
opposed to discussion about the _standard_) be technical?

--
Fergus Henderson            | As practiced by computer science, the study of
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au             | programming is an unholy mixture of mathematics,
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh | literary criticism, and folklore. - B. A. Sheil

In article <9511023.23569@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU says...
>
>matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>
>>So far, Ron and I have both volunteered to be moderators.  Two moderators
>>would probably be enough, since comp.std.c++ ought to be a low-volume
>>group, but it would be nice to have one or two more.  Would anyone
>>else like to volunteer?  Please?
>

I volunteered several times...


>I'd be happy to volunteer, presuming we can overcome the potential
>technical problem posed by the slow newsfeed here (I received Matt
>Austern's article 15 days after it was posted!).
>

If you are not recieving articles within 3 hours of posting, you are
probably out of touch and caught in a hopeless "time warp".

How do you cope with people sending you mail "before" you read
the article.

Of course I like the folks that are able to post a reply "before"
the original article is posted to the net. That is tricky.


>>Charters of unmoderated newsgroups aren't all that important, but for
>>moderated newsgroups we really do have to come up with sensible
>>charters to give the moderators some guidance.  I'd suggest something
>>like this (improvements on my wording are welcome, of course):
>>
>>    comp.std.c++ is for technical announcements and discussion of the
>>    ANSI/ISO C++ standardization process and the forthcoming C++
>>    standard.  Other discussion that is directly related to the C++
>>    standard (not just to C++ programming) is also welcome.  Questions
>>    about C++ programming techniques, though, should instead be posted
>>    to comp.lang.c++, and questions that are specific to some
>>    particular platform should be posted to a group devoted to that
>>    platform.
>>
>>Your thoughts?
>
>What exactly does "... technical announcements and discussion of the
>ANSI/ISO C++ standardization process ..." mean?  The announcements have
>to be technical, but the discussion doesn't?  How can
>announcements/discussion about the standardization _process_ (as
>opposed to discussion about the _standard_) be technical?
>

Keep in mind that what happened was that comp.lang.c++ became too
noisy. This newsgoup, comp.std.c++, became an outlet for "studs" to
discuss more advanced topics.

Now that the "standard" is about to be released for comments, this
newsgroup is going through some pre-game warm ups. I for one have been
trying to keep my postings to a minimum in order to provide more
bandwidth for ANSI committee members to report on the hour by hour
development of the standard.

The latest report is that they are trying to post a notice to the
net about the standard, but they can not access any machines because
they removed the @ key from all C++ programmers' keyboards. According
to the Internet standards, they can use the keyword AT...maybe that
will help them get the thing rolled out on to the net...

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <DEC.95Apr19213109@john.gsl.com>, dec@gsl.com says...
>
>In article <3n1f5o$gsv@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>
>    JF>    I guess everyone is correct, the C++ Standard is at the
>    JF> end, not the beginning...it is time to look to the future at
>    JF> more modern solutions than trains and sling-shots...
>
>Look, Jim. Stop whining about C++. It is clearly a language which you
>will never use so your comments can only be interpreted as sour grapes
>because an alternative which you favor has not gained commercial
>acceptance (yet - these things take time).
>

This is just not the case. I do intend to use C++, or rather C+@.
You see, according to most people here as well as the ARM, the @
is used by C++ people to indicate an arbitrary substitution of a
number of different operators. Since + is one of the operators
the @ in C+@ can be replaced by + and therefore C+@ becomes C++.

Now the issue becomes, if C+@ uses the C++ name (name overloading)
and we publish the language "standard" and inform users that
our C++ has garbage collection and a "standard class library"
with over 350 classes (including String), then who will be able to
argue with this approach?

I do assume that the ANSI and ISO committees will have to review
"our" implementation of C++. After all, the goal is to try to
find commonality between all vendors and to come to a common
understanding. If vendors are excluded, then what is the point
of the standards effort?


>Although I am on the committe (via the UK panel) I don't believe that
>C++ is the ultimate in programming languages, or that it doesn't
>contain serious flaws.
>

These can be fixed. They were fixed back in 1985. This has given
us ample time to develop reusable software and to prove that
true object-oriented programming works and is highly productive.


>If you really feel that you offer a better alternative to C++ then I,
>and I suspect a lot og other people, would rather hear positive
>information about that alternative rather than pathetic aggressiveness
>to C++.
>

Which C++ are you speaking of?


>Obviously this is not the place for such information so if you wish to
>start a mailing list or a new nesgroup then I, for one, would be happy
>to join it and make up my own mind.
>

Yes, you are correct, this newsgroup is about the standardization of
C++. The newsgroup comp.lang.c++ should be used for all other questions
and comments. It should also be noted that this newsgroup is not owned
or controlled by the ANSI or ISO committees. As many (including
committee members), have pointed out, if anything this newsgroup
should be used by people NOT on the committee. The committee clearly
has its own private communication facilities and uses this newsgroup
to share very little information with the world. They prefer to use
publications like the C++ Report which requires articles to be closed
3 months before publication. In Usenet terms, 3 months is an eternity.


>Of course, I don't expect you do actually make any such positive moves
>as you are clearly, from your messages, only interested in axe grinding
>and disruption, but I would be very please to be proven wrong about
>this.
>

Any participation in the ANSI process should be considered to be valid.
If not for people like me, for all you know these folks could be
trying to pass off PL/I as C++. Someone has to be a watch dog...the
best watch dogs are C+@s....

>Doug
>
>(I can't believe I finally succumbed to responding to a Jim Fleming
>message)
>

I hear it is like eating olives...maybe the second time will be better..

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3m1rgn$878@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
> From my point of view, the C++ standards process is near the beginning
> not the end. The *public* has not even commented yet. The show has not
> started yet. How can your charter use the words "forthcoming", with such
> confidence?

If the draft standard is about to be issued for public comment, then it is
indeed "near the end".  Having been involved in an ANSI/ISO language
standards effort, I can tell you from experience that trying to get
significant changes made to a draft standard, once it is out for public
review, is very hard -- you'd do better to try to stop a train with a
slingshot. :-)

The ISO process in particular is heavily biased towards moving the
standards process along.  Public comment periods are viewed by many ISO
participants as a "formality", not a chance for the public to seriously
affect the direction or content of the standard.

The assumption in the ISO/ANSI standards process is that the Technical
Committee accurately and fairly represents the public, that they are
technical experts who will consider the interests of everyone; therefore,
their opinions should carry more weight because they have spent
considerable more time and energy considering all the alternatives.

There is also an assumption that if someone has a serious interest in the
standard, they should join the TC and contribute to it.  (IMHO, there are
two flaws in this: 1) What if someone believes the standard is unnecessary,
premature, or positively unwanted?  2) A relatively small committee cannot
hope to accurately represent the views of the large majority of users of
any standard, unless there is already consensus on what the standard should
contain.  In the case of standards for mechanical items, such as bolts and
nuts, such consensus is easy.  In the case of standards for new languages
or substantial revisions of existing languages, such consensus is well nigh
impossible.)

About all the public comments are likely to do is to point out serious
flaws or inconsistencies in the standard.  It is *extremely* difficult for
public comment to instigate new features or the removal of features from
the draft.  Note that I don't say impossible, just very difficult.  The
Technical Committee (X3J16 in this case) obviously feels the standard is in
pretty good shape when they put it out as a draft.  They are probably very
tired of the standards process by now, and therefore not very amenable to
"starting over", even on part of the draft.

By the way, you are incorrect in stating that the public has not yet
commented on the standard.  What do you think comp.std.c++ has been doing
for the last umpty years?  I think X3J16 has done a pretty good job of
listening to the public, considering the variety of opinions.  But they
still have to make choices, and there will always be (possibly large)
groups who disagree with their choices.  That's life.

--
Bill Leonard
Harris Computer Systems Corporation
2101 W. Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL  33309
Bill.Leonard@mail.hcsc.com

These opinions and statements are my own and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions or positions of Harris Computer Systems Corporation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More people run Windows on their home computers than on any other home
appliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3mu1a5$sim@hawk.hcsc.com>, bill@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com says...
>
>In article <3m1rgn$878@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>> From my point of view, the C++ standards process is near the beginning
>> not the end. The *public* has not even commented yet. The show has not
>> started yet. How can your charter use the words "forthcoming", with such
>> confidence?
>
>If the draft standard is about to be issued for public comment, then it is
>indeed "near the end".  Having been involved in an ANSI/ISO language
>standards effort, I can tell you from experience that trying to get
>significant changes made to a draft standard, once it is out for public
>review, is very hard -- you'd do better to try to stop a train with a
>slingshot. :-)
>

Yes, and trying to stop the forthcoming moves by AT&T into the Internet
would make trying to stop C++ look like childs play...

I guess everyone is correct, the C++ Standard is at the end, not the
beginning...it is time to look to the future at more modern solutions
than trains and sling-shots...


>The ISO process in particular is heavily biased towards moving the
>standards process along.  Public comment periods are viewed by many ISO
>participants as a "formality", not a chance for the public to seriously
>affect the direction or content of the standard.
>

AHHHH!...then this is a good place to let the public know that they
should not waste their time or energy commenting...here are some prepared
comments that you are welcome to use...just sweep and mail...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Pre-Drafted Public Comment(s) on C++ Standard

TO: ANSI C++ Standards Committee
RE: DRAFT Standard of the C++ Programming Language

 A great achievement...Bell Labs at its Best
 An epic beyond compare...a real Bjarne Burner
 Four thumbs up...and two gold stars...
 Full steam ahead...
 Go for it...
 Looks Good...No not Good...GRRRRREAAAAT!
 How could there be an encore...(is there?)
 The size alone gives me goose bumps...

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

>The assumption in the ISO/ANSI standards process is that the Technical
>Committee accurately and fairly represents the public, that they are
>technical experts who will consider the interests of everyone; therefore,
>their opinions should carry more weight because they have spent
>considerable more time and energy considering all the alternatives.
>

I suppose that ISO and ANSI could have been conceived in a day
and age when software was not "big bucks"...they may have missed
the fact that the "movie rights" alone to C++ are probably worth
5 or 10 million....:)


>There is also an assumption that if someone has a serious interest in the
>standard, they should join the TC and contribute to it.  (IMHO, there are
>two flaws in this: 1) What if someone believes the standard is unnecessary,
>premature, or positively unwanted?  2) A relatively small committee cannot
>hope to accurately represent the views of the large majority of users of
>any standard, unless there is already consensus on what the standard should
>contain.  In the case of standards for mechanical items, such as bolts and
>nuts, such consensus is easy.  In the case of standards for new languages
>or substantial revisions of existing languages, such consensus is well nigh
>impossible.)
>

How long do you think someone would survive being a member of the
C++ standards committee if their opinion was that the language was
seriously flawed, that far too much time an energy (and money) had
been wasted on it...and that other more productive solutions exist
which have been actively withheld from the public's view by members
of the ANSII committee...???


>About all the public comments are likely to do is to point out serious
>flaws or inconsistencies in the standard.  It is *extremely* difficult for
>public comment to instigate new features or the removal of features from
>the draft.  Note that I don't say impossible, just very difficult.  The
>Technical Committee (X3J16 in this case) obviously feels the standard is in
>pretty good shape when they put it out as a draft.  They are probably very
>tired of the standards process by now, and therefore not very amenable to
>"starting over", even on part of the draft.
>

Yes...I agree, no one has a chance to change the "forthcoming", epic
achievement call C++...it is now in the history books...unfortunately,
it shares those books with great languages like C and C+@....(by the
way, the @ (as in C++) could stand for a variety of operators...
therefore...if @ is replaced with +, then C+@ == C++...this is called
"name overloading"...)


>By the way, you are incorrect in stating that the public has not yet
>commented on the standard.  What do you think comp.std.c++ has been doing
>for the last umpty years?  I think X3J16 has done a pretty good job of
>listening to the public, considering the variety of opinions.  But they
>still have to make choices, and there will always be (possibly large)
>groups who disagree with their choices.  That's life.
>
>--
>Bill Leonard
>Harris Computer Systems Corporation

Yes, that's life...

That is why this is 1995 and people are still writing C++ String
classes and reinventing class libraries from scratch because reuse
has not been achieved by people using C++...(OH, that's right!, reuse
was never intended as an objective of C++...I keep forgetting)...
(the objective was to make lots of people money on books, consulting,
software engineering, and hosting standards meetings...)...I think
that C++ has achieved its goal...wait when the standard hits, we
will be able to reduce the Federal deficit from the increase in GNP
as a result of everyone trying to implement the standard...


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    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
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

A couple of weeks ago, Ron Guilmette (rfg@segfault.us.com) suggested
that comp.std.c++ be changed to a moderated newsgroup; he and I have
had a few more discussions about the subject.

Personally, I think it's a good idea.  comp.std.c++ ought to be a
low-volume technical group that's devoted to the C++ standardization
process, but instead it's getting a lot of discussion that more
properly belongs on comp.lang.c++.  In fact, it often gets posts that
don't even belong on comp.lang.c++: questions about algorithms, game
design, specific implementations, and so on.  If other people think
that moderation is a good idea, I'm willing to be the official "group
proponent" who takes things through the official RFD/CFV process.

We're not yet at the stage where we can put out a formal RFD.  (And
unless a lot of people support this idea, I won't bother with a formal
RFD at all.)  The two main things we need before reaching the RFD
stage are (1) A decision about moderators; and (2) A specific charter
that describes what the moderation policy will be.

I tend to think that having multiple moderators is the best idea.
(Check out soc.feminism, or sci.physics.research, or a few other
groups, if you want to see how multiple moderation can work.)  So far,
Ron and I have both volunteered to be moderators.  Two moderators
would probably be enough, since comp.std.c++ ought to be a low-volume
group, but it would be nice to have one or two more.  Would anyone
else like to volunteer?  Please?

Charters of unmoderated newsgroups aren't all that important, but for
moderated newsgroups we really do have to come up with sensible
charters to give the moderators some guidance.  I'd suggest something
like this (improvements on my wording are welcome, of course):

    comp.std.c++ is for technical announcements and discussion of the
    ANSI/ISO C++ standardization process and the forthcoming C++
    standard.  Other discussion that is directly related to the C++
    standard (not just to C++ programming) is also welcome.  Questions
    about C++ programming techniques, though, should instead be posted
    to comp.lang.c++, and questions that are specific to some
    particular platform should be posted to a group devoted to that
    platform.

Your thoughts?

--

                               --matt

> A couple of weeks ago, Ron Guilmette (rfg@segfault.us.com) suggested
> that comp.std.c++ be changed to a moderated newsgroup; he and I have
> had a few more discussions about the subject.
>
> Personally, I think it's a good idea.  comp.std.c++ ought to be a
> low-volume technical group that's devoted to the C++ standardization
> process, but instead it's getting a lot of discussion that more
> properly belongs on comp.lang.c++.  In fact, it often gets posts that
> don't even belong on comp.lang.c++: questions about algorithms, game
> design, specific implementations, and so on.  If other people think
> that moderation is a good idea, I'm willing to be the official "group
> proponent" who takes things through the official RFD/CFV process.

> Your thoughts?

I've yet to hear any comment on my proposal to periodically post a
charter redirecting language questions to comp.lang.c++. I do not want
to simply begin posting it on my sole authority, nor without hearing
that the wording is acceptable to others.

>     comp.std.c++ is for technical announcements and discussion of the
>     ANSI/ISO C++ standardization process and the forthcoming C++
>     standard.  Other discussion that is directly related to the C++
>     standard (not just to C++ programming) is also welcome.  Questions
>     about C++ programming techniques, though, should instead be posted
>     to comp.lang.c++, and questions that are specific to some
>     particular platform should be posted to a group devoted to that
>     platform.

Your wording is basically OK with me. Stylewise, I would add a paragraph
break before "Questions about C++ programming techniques" to emphasize
the redirection, and underline "programming techniques" for additional
emphasis. You can never make it too obvious to newbies.

        Tom

In article <MATT.95Apr5131338@physics2.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu says...
>
[snip]
>    comp.std.c++ is for technical announcements and discussion of the
>    ANSI/ISO C++ standardization process and the forthcoming C++
>    standard.  Other discussion that is directly related to the C++
>    standard (not just to C++ programming) is also welcome.  Questions
>    about C++ programming techniques, though, should instead be posted
>    to comp.lang.c++, and questions that are specific to some
>    particular platform should be posted to a group devoted to that
>    platform.
>
>Your thoughts?
>

Do you mean "forthcoming" DRAFT "C++ Standard" which will be circulated
for *public* comments and feedback?

OR...is your proposed charter *assuming* that "THE C++ Standard" is almost
done...