In article <rfgCvr66r.Msx@netcom.com>, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
|> In article <CvHBx3.AoJ@world.std.com> tob@world.std.com suggests:
|> [... rename this newgroup to: ]
|> >comp.std.x3j16-wg21
|>
|> I like it.  All in favor please speak up.

A most excellent suggestion.  I think this is one of the best ideas I've seen
in a very long time.

--
Brian R. Gilstrap                      Ascom Timeplex
gilstrap@louie.timeplex.com            1807 Park 270 Dr.
314-579-6514                           Suite 350
Me?  Speak for my company?  Hah!       St. Louis, MO 63146          USA

Some workstation manufacturers do this with products all the time,
(rename something that everyone knows and, uh, loves), and it confuses
the users to no end, myself included.

Keeping the discussion to strictly standard related topics would would
be easier if the group did not have such a popular moniker...
 doug

In article <346vio$ejk@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Ulf Schuenemann) writes:
>
>Will comp.std.c++ continue after the standard is out?

 Is comp.std.c an active group? (Yes)
>
>I hope so, as I enjoy exchanging ideas with you about ways to improve C++.
>When the standard is out, we have time to discuss seriously all the ideas
>that are rejected now with the killer-phrase: "That would delay the standard"
>This is applied to some minor issues (is not worth a delay) and to
>major issues (the delay would be too long).

 We can have fun finding the defects. In both the
Standard and compilers.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

>>>>> "U" == Ulf Schuenemann <schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> writes:

U> When the standard is out it would be nice to discuss without
U> time-pressure some interesting ideas that could be a preparation of
U> a revision of the standard in the future.

I agree completely.  This is not the only C++ standard; five years
after a standard has been issued, ISO will determine to either

 - withdraw the standard
 - re-issue the standard without changes
 - create a new work item to revise the standard

The last alternative seems most likely to me.

      -- Dag

In article <KANZE.94Sep2185340@slsvhdt.us-es.sel.de> kanze@us-es.sel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/164 #71425) writes:
>In article <346vio$ejk@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
>schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Ulf Schuenemann) writes:
>
>|> Will comp.std.c++ continue after the standard is out?
>
>Of course.  We will then discuss (or argue) what the standard means.
>
>Overall, I find the C standard excellent.  (I just hope we will do as
>well.)  But there still seems to be plenty to discuss in comp.std.c.

 Given history etc, the C standard is a useful document.
It has quite a number of holes in it and I would slam it
unmericifully were it produced as a description of C today.

 A document of comparable quality is utterly unacceptable
for C++. C++ is a MUCH bigger and more complex language
and we now have a VERY wide and well connected bunch of users
with much higher demands for precision to enable portability.

 There have been <200 defect reports on ISO C.
If C++ is the same quality, we'd get over 2000 and there
is no way the committee could even raise their hands on
each one in a years worth of meetings.

 I'm about to review a pre-release to ISO copy,
and if I only find 200 faults I'll be amazed. With any
luck by the time we get an International Standard,
most of the document will have been tightened up so it
will just, barely, do -- like the ISO C Standard.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

In article <CvHBx3.AoJ@world.std.com> tob@world.std.com suggests:
[... rename this newgroup to: ]
>comp.std.x3j16-wg21

I like it.  All in favor please speak up.

--

-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting -------------------
---- domain addr: rfg@netcom.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ----
---- uucp addr: ...!uunet!netcom!rfg ------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -

In article <346vio$ejk@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Ulf Schuenemann) writes:
>
>Will comp.std.c++ continue after the standard is out?

For an unambiguous answer to this question, check out comp.std.c.  It is
still going strong, several years after the ink has dried on the C standard.

--

-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting -------------------
---- domain addr: rfg@netcom.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ----
---- uucp addr: ...!uunet!netcom!rfg ------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -

In comp.std.c++, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>In article <CvHBx3.AoJ@world.std.com> tob@world.std.com suggests:
>[... rename this newgroup to: ]
>>comp.std.x3j16-wg21
>
>I like it.  All in favor please speak up.

Aye aye!  :)
                             ###
Grace + Peace
rothpn@oasys.dt.navy.mil              alias: Peter N Roth
Have you made any interesting mistakes lately?  Why not?

In article <rfgCvr66r.Msx@netcom.com>,
Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <CvHBx3.AoJ@world.std.com> tob@world.std.com suggests:
>[... rename this newgroup to: ]
>>
>>comp.std.x3j16-wg21
>
>I like it.  All in favor please speak up.
>

I agree.  Though it may seem cryptic to some, it is very descriptive, plus
it would reduce the likelihood of inappropriate postings to this newsgroup.

--
==============================================================================
Rich James                  rsj@feenix.metronet.com
Voice: 214-604-6292         FAX: 214-604-4348
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Guilmette writes:

>>I think the best break-down might be as follows:
>>
>> comp.std.c++.i-am-clueless
>> comp.std.c++.more-dumb-extension-proposals
>> comp.std.c++.yes-this-is-really-about-the-standard

Well, those names are hard to type.  How about:

 comp.std.c++.huh
 comp.std.c++++++
 comp.std.c++.std

-Luddy Harrison

The biggest problem that I see aren't the myriad language extension
proposals/ideas (I mean, comp.std.c++ implies that you want to discuss the
standards for C++, not necessarily just the _existing_ ones, right?).

The problems are clueless folks who haven't read the FAQ (AFAIK, there IS
no comp.std.c++ FAQ -- could this be one of the problems?) for
comp.lang.c++ and determined that THAT is where they should post, not
comp.std.c++.  PEOPLE ARE SHEEP AND WILL POST WHERE THEY THINK THEY WILL
GET AN APPOPRIATE RESPONSE.  And, following up on this, if you know very
little about a subject (say, USENet or C++) then you will post to a group
that sounds promising, i.e. one that ends in "c++" -- so it then becomes a
toss up between comp.lang.c++ and comp.std.c++, at which point about 10%
get funneled into the latter.

A single new group to get rid of the trailing "c++" extension would do a
lot for reducing irrelevant traffic (like this post) -- how about
"comp.std.c++.d"?

Note that this discussion has been had more than a few times.

And yes, this post too is horribly off topic.

Brian
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian Hook            | Specializing in real-time 3D graphics       |
| Box 90315             |---------------------------------------------|
| Gainesville, FL 32607 | bwh@prl.ufl.edu                             |
+- "Style distinguishes excellence from accomplishment" - J. Coplien -+

In article <MAV.94Sep1092759@gaia.cc.gatech.edu>
mav@gaia.cc.gatech.edu (Maurizio Vitale) writes:

|> Until the X3J16 committee will be split into a core subgroup, a
|> library subgroup, an extensions subgroup and a grammar subgroup,
    [...]

Just for the record (and not that I think it particularly relevant to
the question at hand), the X3J16/WG21 *is* split into a core subgroup,
an extensions subgroup, a library subgroup, a grammar subgroup, an
edit subgroup (for editorial issues) and an environment subgroup.
--
James Kanze                                  email: kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

>>>>> "rfg" == Ronald F Guilmette <rfg@netcom.com> writes:

  rfg> In article <336me3$21u2@st6000.sct.edu> gcato@sct.edu (Gene
  rfg> Cato) writes: Given that this news group seems to be dominated
  rfg> of late by a combination of postings from people who are
  rfg> obviously lost (and really belong in either comp.lang.c++ or in
  rfg> alt.lost.idiot) and postings from people who want to suggest
  rfg> yet another dumb little language extension (such as the one
  rfg> noted in the above quotation)

Until the X3J16 committee will be split into a core subgroup, a
library subgroup, an extensions subgroup and a grammar subgroup, posts on
anyone of those topics (and maybe others) are entirely appropriate on
this newsgroup, no matter what you say. When us, poor sinners, will
receive the Word, in the form of the first public C++ Standard Draft
(hopefully later on this year), we will able to see the Truth and
discern what belongs here and what doesn't, and in remission for our
sins we'll move all the garbage to alt.languages.c++future.
Up to then, you may want to use your infinite patience and understand
that we prefer to err on our own that having to rely on you to tell us
what's good and what isn't.

  rfg> I would like to now call for a formal discussion of the idea of
  rfg> breaking comp.std.c++ into an appropriate set of subgroups.

This doesn't look like a _formal_ discussion (the charter, the RFD on
news.groups, you know).

BTW, by your same token we shouldn't discuss the issue of
di/trigraphs, because, being accepted into the current draft, they are
part of the standard and trying to removing them is just another dummy
extension to the language. Of course, I don't want to compare mere
mortals' extensions to god's ruling. Just another sin for my poor soul
:-).

Summing up: take it easy and enjoy life. If a subject hurt you just
use a kill file.
Cheers,
--
    Maurizio Vitale
 _______________
|        _      |\   e-mail: mav@cc.gatech.edu     | How many times can
|  /|/| '_) | ) | |  voice:  (404) 881-6083 (home) | a man turn his head,
| | | |_(_|_|/  | |          (404) 853-9382 (work) | and pretend that he
|_______________| |                                | just doesn't see ?
 \_______________\|  fax:    (404) 853-9378        |  - Bob Dylan

>>>>> "James" == James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/164 #71425 <kanze@us-es.sel.de> writes:

  James> In article <MAV.94Sep1092759@gaia.cc.gatech.edu>
  James> mav@gaia.cc.gatech.edu (Maurizio Vitale) writes:

  James> |> Until the X3J16 committee will be split into a core subgroup, a
  James> |> library subgroup, an extensions subgroup and a grammar subgroup,
  James>     [...]

  James> Just for the record (and not that I think it particularly
  James> relevant to the question at hand), the X3J16/WG21 *is* split
  James> into a core subgroup, an extensions subgroup, a library
  James> subgroup, a grammar subgroup, an edit subgroup (for editorial
  James> issues) and an environment subgroup.

Sorry for my english. I obviously meant that since X3J16 is organized
in that way, the same should apply in comp.std.c++.
--
    Maurizio Vitale
 _______________
|        _      |\   e-mail: mav@cc.gatech.edu     | How many times can
|  /|/| '_) | ) | |  voice:  (404) 881-6083 (home) | a man turn his head,
| | | |_(_|_|/  | |          (404) 853-9382 (work) | and pretend that he
|_______________| |                                | just doesn't see ?
 \_______________\|  fax:    (404) 853-9378        |  - Bob Dylan

bwh@kato.prl.ufl.edu (Brian Hook):
> The biggest problem that I see aren't the myriad language extension
> proposals/ideas (I mean, comp.std.c++ implies that you want to discuss the
> standards for C++, not necessarily just the _existing_ ones, right?).

Right. One person's "yet another dumb little language extension" (as
someone I'm ignoring put it) is another person's "idea that ought to be
at least hashed out" and another's "good idea". Sometimes it's stupid,
sometimes it ain't. Sure, we would like a group where only wise people
could post their thoughts, but Usenet has no mechanism for that.


> The problems are clueless folks who haven't read the FAQ (AFAIK, there IS
> no comp.std.c++ FAQ -- could this be one of the problems?) for
> comp.lang.c++ and determined that THAT is where they should post, not
> comp.std.c++.  PEOPLE ARE SHEEP AND WILL POST WHERE THEY THINK THEY WILL
> GET AN APPOPRIATE RESPONSE.  And, following up on this, if you know very
> little about a subject (say, USENet or C++) then you will post to a group
> that sounds promising, i.e. one that ends in "c++" -- so it then becomes a
> toss up between comp.lang.c++ and comp.std.c++, at which point about 10%
> get funneled into the latter.

You have again hit the nail on the head. At my site (Delphi's
programming forum, which I host) I just had to turn down a user who
asked for comp.std.c, believing it to be a programming group.

> A single new group to get rid of the trailing "c++" extension would do a
> lot for reducing irrelevant traffic (like this post) -- how about
> "comp.std.c++.d"?

You are correct, but the "c++" component will still bring 'em in.

I would suggest

comp.std.design-of-c++

comp.std.x3j16
comp.std.x3j16-wg21

Less seriously, comp.std.c++.no-how-to-s.allowed

I would _not_ suggest splitting the group into multiples, as some have
wanted. Let's have some humility - we _don't_ have that much traffic.

> And yes, this post too is horribly off topic.

IMO, light discussion of a group's future is appropriate to any group.
(Not everyone agrees with me, but they're just decreeing against the
tides if they don't think most news.groups discussions start that way)
When it gets serious it goes to news.groups, of course.

        Tom

--
finger me for how Tehomega is coming along (at tob@world.std.com)
Author of The Burning Tower (from TomBreton@delphi.com) (weekly in
rec.games.frp.archives)

In article <346vio$ejk@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Ulf Schuenemann) writes:

|> Will comp.std.c++ continue after the standard is out?

Of course.  We will then discuss (or argue) what the standard means.

Overall, I find the C standard excellent.  (I just hope we will do as
well.)  But there still seems to be plenty to discuss in comp.std.c.
--
James Kanze                                  email: kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:

>comp.std.x3j16-wg21

Yes, that should be cryptic enough ;-)

We can put a note in the comp.lang.c++ FAQ list saying that
comp.std.x3j16-wg21 is for discussion of the C++ standard
(and nothing else!).   That way, only people who have actually
read the comp.lang.c++ FAQ list are likely to post.

Keep comp.std.c++ clean -- purity by obscurity! ;-)

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