In article <rfgCwvvx7.DKJ@netcom.com>, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F.
Guilmette) writes:

>In article <1994Sep28.140438.3967@sco.COM> simon@sco.COM (Simon Tooke)
writes:
>>In <rfgCwpI5J.37D@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
writes:
>>>P.S.  For the benefit of those who are not already aware of it, there
will
>>>be _no_ rationale document for the ANSI/ISO C++ standard.  The first
order
>>>reason for this is that no one wanted to write one.  Determination of
the
>>>second order reason(s) (i.e. the reason(s) why no one wanted to write
one)
>>>is left as an exercize for the reader.
>>
>>Incorrect.  Many people (including myself) wanted to write one.

>I stand corrected.  I should have said that no one wanted to write one
>bad enough to actually do it.

>>The problem was time constraints.

>Isn't it always?  I guess one might say that the reason we haven't yet
>solved the problem of world poverty is `time constraints'.  That may be
>a perfectly true statement as it stands, but it doesn't carry a great
>deal of semantic content.

No, world poverty is a problem we can't solve because we haven't the
faintest clue how. I'm just hoping that isn't the case for a C++
rationale.

Bob Foster
Object Factory