In article <3laepq$bq6@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
[..]
|> Not quite but very close, we should be able to propose modifications that
|> allow a subset of C++ to be translated into C+@.

Well, as 'we', the average readers of comp.std.c++, don't know much about C+@,
the target-language of the to-be-proposed modifications,
and as the people knowing more about C+@ are not sharing their knowledge
with 'us' in this newsgroup, 'we' are NOT able to propose such modifications.
As it seems you are knowing C+@ and C++ you are the only one
who is competent enough to propose such modification.

So it's up to you: Propose _concrete_ modifications
- than we can discuss them in this thread.


Ulf Schuenemann

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf Sch   nemann
Fakult   t f   r Informatik, Technische Universit   t M   nchen, Germany.
email: schuenem@informatik.tu-muenchen.de

In article <3laepq$bq6@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
|> In article <3l9tdl$ht9@thecourier.cims.nyu.edu>, osinski@valis.cs.nyu.edu
|> says...
|> >Aha!  Now we see what Jim has been leading up to!  He'll present C+@ as a
|> >"proposed modification" in the hope that the ensuing laughter will delay
|> the
|> >standard for about a year or so.  Uh-oh -- it just might work!
|> >
|>
|> Not quite but very close, we should be able to propose modifications that
|> allow a subset of C++ to be translated into C+@. Then we can migrate to
|> a language with true-objects, first class classes, garbage collection, etc.

You miss the very point of C++.  The users of C++ do not want "true" objects
(by anyone elses definition) all the time.  The users want to be able to
selectively use how much of the object model applies to each part of the
application.

I say this, because it is why I use C++ rather than Objective-C, and I believe
I am representative a fairly large block of the C++ users in that regard.

The point is you can design C++ objects which can be safely manipulated by
non-OO languanges (or non-OO programmers).  If garbage collection or basic
types as true objects were part of the language, the ability to do that
might be compromised by an implementation.

In article <9508623.4327@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
|> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
|>
|> >Q1: If a language wich is very similar to the syntax of C++ but with the
|> >semantics of Smalltalk is submitted to the ANSI committee that is
|> >standardizing C++ as a "proposed modification", what should the committee
|> >do? (evolve C++ to this language? ignore it? reject it?)
|>
|> When they've finally stopped laughing, they should politely reject
|> the proposal, pointing out that C++ is in fact very different to
|> Smalltalk and the aim of the C++ committee is to standardize C++,
|> not some other language.

Aha!  Now we see what Jim has been leading up to!  He'll present C+@ as a
"proposed modification" in the hope that the ensuing laughter will delay the
standard for about a year or so.  Uh-oh -- it just might work!

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ed Osinski
 Computer Science Department, New York University
 E-mail:  osinski@cs.nyu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of
religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave
to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of
violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film.  This was
the Spanish Inquisition...
    -- Monty Python's Flying Circus

In article <3l9tdl$ht9@thecourier.cims.nyu.edu>, osinski@valis.cs.nyu.edu
says...
>
>In article <9508623.4327@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus
Henderson) writ
>es:
>|> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>|>
>|> >Q1: If a language wich is very similar to the syntax of C++ but with
the
>|> >semantics of Smalltalk is submitted to the ANSI committee that is
>|> >standardizing C++ as a "proposed modification", what should the
committee
>|> >do? (evolve C++ to this language? ignore it? reject it?)
>|>
>|> When they've finally stopped laughing, they should politely reject
>|> the proposal, pointing out that C++ is in fact very different to
>|> Smalltalk and the aim of the C++ committee is to standardize C++,
>|> not some other language.
>
>Aha!  Now we see what Jim has been leading up to!  He'll present C+@ as a
>"proposed modification" in the hope that the ensuing laughter will delay
the
>standard for about a year or so.  Uh-oh -- it just might work!
>

Not quite but very close, we should be able to propose modifications that
allow a subset of C++ to be translated into C+@. Then we can migrate to
a language with true-objects, first class classes, garbage collection, etc.

Actually, what is more practical is another language to language matching
effort. This would involve converting C+@ to Smalltalk and then running
it through the Smalltalk tools. This would allow C programmers to more
easily migrate to Smalltalk.

--
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_|

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>Q1: If a language wich is very similar to the syntax of C++ but with the
>semantics of Smalltalk is submitted to the ANSI committee that is
>standardizing C++ as a "proposed modification", what should the committee
>do? (evolve C++ to this language? ignore it? reject it?)

Reject it.  The charter of the committee is to standardize C++, which was
defined as based on Ellis and Stroustrup's "Annotated C++ Reference
Manual", with templates and exceptions to be added.  Its charter is not
to invent a new language.  What a wild man you are, Mr. Fleming: "I
propose that you abandon your language and replace it with mine".  Do you
think the millions of C++ programmers will applaud you?  (Borland alone
has sold more than one million copies of their C++ compiler -- how many
folks have C+@?).

If C+@ catches on, it's likely that one day there will be a
standardization effort for that language.  That would be a separate
committee effort.

>--Notes
> Let's say that the syntax of the language is very stable.

Cool, then it might be reasonable to publish an official standard.

> Let's say that a "standard" compiler for the language exists
>  and the compiler can be used to "augment" the standard
>  so that if there is ever any question about the standard
>  language definition, the compiler can be the final
>  arbiter and not some group of humans.

Uncool.  This is not acceptable as a standard.  It must be possible to
produce a second independent compiler.  Furthermore, any real language
is going to have some set of "undefined" behaviors.  What if the reference
compiler has a bug? (all compilers do).  Or would all conforming compilers
need to be bug-for-bug compatible?

At one time, cfront had this status in the C++ world (as the reference
compiler).  This was not a good state of affairs, and the cfront authors
themselves recognized this.

> Let's say that hundreds of stable classes have been written in
>  the language. (Therefore it is proven to be stable)

That's nice, but hardly unique to C+@.

> Let's say that the language has been designed to work hand in
>  hand with ANSI C and therefore, no migration of features
>  from this language to ANSI C would be required, thus
>  ensuring that ANSI C could remain stable which helps to
>  ensure its usefullness.

ANSI C's stability is not affected by C++, C+@, or anything else.
Features from C++ that migrated to C (e.g. prototypes) didn't migrate
because C++ required them to be in C, but because the ANSI C people
recognized their usefulness.

--
-- Joe Buck  <jbuck@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Phone: +1 415 694 1729

In article <9508623.4327@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU says...
>
>jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>
>>Q1: If a language wich is very similar to the syntax of C++ but with the
>>semantics of Smalltalk is submitted to the ANSI committee that is
>>standardizing C++ as a "proposed modification", what should the committee
>>do? (evolve C++ to this language? ignore it? reject it?)
>
>When they've finally stopped laughing, they should politely reject
>the proposal, pointing out that C++ is in fact very different to
>Smalltalk and the aim of the C++ committee is to standardize C++,
>not some other language.
>

Please note I said "semantics" not syntax...what if the "syntax" was
almost "exactly" like C++?

Start laughing...

--
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_|

Even though some of the members of the ANSI committee to standardize
C++ have indicated that this newsgroup is not "theirs" and is not "their"
forum for reporting on their activities, some have admitted that they
"follow" this newsgroup as part of their standards committee "work".

Given this as a premise...the following question is directed to any
ANSI committee member OR to anyone that has an opinion on the answer.

Q1: If a language wich is very similar to the syntax of C++ but with the
semantics of Smalltalk is submitted to the ANSI committee that is
standardizing C++ as a "proposed modification", what should the committee
do? (evolve C++ to this language? ignore it? reject it?)

--Notes
 Let's say that the syntax of the language is very stable.
 Let's say that a "standard" compiler for the language exists
  and the compiler can be used to "augment" the standard
  so that if there is ever any question about the standard
  language definition, the compiler can be the final
  arbiter and not some group of humans.
 Let's say that hundreds of stable classes have been written in
  the language. (Therefore it is proven to be stable)
 Let's say that the language has been designed to work hand in
  hand with ANSI C and therefore, no migration of features
  from this language to ANSI C would be required, thus
  ensuring that ANSI C could remain stable which helps to
  ensure its usefullness.

--
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_|

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

>Q1: If a language wich is very similar to the syntax of C++ but with the
>semantics of Smalltalk is submitted to the ANSI committee that is
>standardizing C++ as a "proposed modification", what should the committee
>do? (evolve C++ to this language? ignore it? reject it?)

When they've finally stopped laughing, they should politely reject
the proposal, pointing out that C++ is in fact very different to
Smalltalk and the aim of the C++ committee is to standardize C++,
not some other language.

--
Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au

Someone sent another interesting question....I will post it...

In the current ANSI Standards process for C++, assuming the
committee population is always changing, do you note a change
in expertise either up or down as the standards process progresses?

Expertise going up   []
Expertise going down []
No change            []

In other words, are most of the experts now dropping out as they
see that the standard is almost done and has the committee activity
been turned over to "operational" members to clean up the final
details.

Or....Are more and more "experts" getting involved now that
the standard is almost ready for their review?


--
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\______to the end of the OuterNet