In article <trickr.82.000C293A@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com> trickr@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com (Ralph Trickey) writes:
|  What would I get for my $600?

If you don't belong to any company your $600 buys you a copy of
the working documents.  If you belong to any company your $600 buys
you the right to complain to the first member in your company to
join that that member  hasn't sent you a copy of the documents yet.
This 'convenient' ruling by the committee puts most individual
members under the control of the corporate members, which I think
is a significant mistake, contrary to the intent of the ANSI
'observer' process.

In article <CK97KD.Fs6@microsoft.com> jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:
> In article <trickr.82.000C293A@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com> trickr@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com (Ralph Trickey) writes:

> If you don't belong to any company your $600 buys you a copy of
> the working documents.  If you belong to any company your $600 buys
> you the right to complain to the first member in your company to
> join that that member  hasn't sent you a copy of the documents yet.

The `documents' in question are the committee mailings.  Those happen
six times a year; each mailing is usually a stack of paper about two
inches thick.  Suppose I estimate 1,000 pages, which isn't too far off.
Our local `document services' people charge $.04/page for photocopying,
so that's $40.00/copy for the mailing.  About 120 copies of the mailing go
out, so that's about $5,000 for each mailing.  If one copy went to each
person, rather than to each company, that would raise the cost to more
like $8,000.

Believe it or not, neither ANSI nor ISO is responsible for the mailings;
instead, they are done on a rotating volunteer basis by the member companies.
We instituted the policy of one copy per company after we started having
trouble obtaining volunteers for the mailings.

> This 'convenient' ruling by the committee puts most individual
> members under the control of the corporate members, which I think
> is a significant mistake, contrary to the intent of the ANSI
> 'observer' process.

I think of an `individual' member as one who is self-employed.  Members
who are employees of companies represent their company, period.

However, if you believe your company representative is not willing to send
you the mailings, you might try the effect of contacting the Vice Chair
(who is the keeper of the membership list) and saying `I would like to
join the committee as an Observer, independently of my affiliation with
my employer.  Here's my money.'  This case hasn't come up before, but I would
be willing to bet that you would wind up getting your very own copies of the
mailings.  The purpose of the one-mailing-per-company policy was to reduce
costs, not to help companies withhold committee information from employees
who wish to pay for it.

By the way, while I'm at it, I'd like to correct one factual error that is
incidental to the current discussion.  I believe that the membership fee
entitles a company to send to send two people, not one: a primary member and an
alternate.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article <rfgCJtIyG.BJy@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>In article <CJrzp8.9o0@world.std.com> ssimpson@world.std.com (Steve G Simpson) writes:
>>Yes but the lead time for mags is too long.  If there has been a proposal
>>made to the ANSI comm.  then it must be available in some electronic form.

>As I understand it, the ISO (International Standards Organization) actually
>*prohibits* standardization committees from requiring proposal submissions
>in electronic form.

Who said anything about "requiring proposal submissions in electronic
form"?  Steve was assuming that the proposal was in electronic form (either
because it was submitted that way, or someone transcribed/scanned a paper
submission).  If the proposal is published in a journal, it was probably
composed electronically for submission.

>>couldn't it also be available here so people can test it, try it, comment
>>on it?
>
>Surely you jest.  That would be too... well... egalitarian.  If proposals
>were distributed widely (and to the great unwashed masses) then the
>committee might end up getting more input from the end-user community...
>and we can't have that now can we?

In fact, this is a good point.  Design by committee is hard enough when the
committee has a few dozen members.  Opening up discussion to the entire
comp.std.c++ community is a good way of preventing closure from ever being
reached.  Consider the frequent debates over the fairness of the Usenet
newsgroup creation voting process.

While there may be a little elitist attitude among committee members, I
doubt it is the primary reason they don't conduct their discussions here.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

In article <CJuqIq.BM6@tempel.research.att.com> ark@tempel.research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>Second, requiring electronic submissions would disenfranchise people without
>appropriate computing facilities.  For example, one of the members of the C++
>committee works for a company that until recently prohibited any kind of
>electronic communications at all across the company boundaries.  No
>electronic mail, period.  Recently, that company has relented somewhat
>and now allows outgoing electronic mail -- when that mail is transcribed
>by a secretary.  Incoming electronic mail is printed on paper and delivered
>in that form.

X3J13 (Common Lisp) wanted to conduct some of its business via electronic
mail; in particular, between meetings, subcomittees used email for most
discussions.  There were a few members whose companies didn't have email
connections to the Internet.  I believe we solved this by finding members
who were willing to provide guest accounts for them.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

In article <2hp5mjINNkm1@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry
Margolin) writes:

|> In article <trickr.82.000C293A@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com> trickr@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com (Ralph Trickey) writes:
|> >  What would I get for my $600? I was under the impression that the only
|> >membership I would be eligible for would be an Observer membership since I am
|> >a consultant, and not even currently working in C++.

|> ANSI committee voting membership is open to anyone.  We have had several
|> voting consultants on X3J13.

|> The only restriction is "one company = one vote", and if you don't work for
|> the same company as another member, you count as a separate company.  I
|> don't know offhand if they restrict a consultant who happens to be
|> contracted to a company that has its own representative as well.

They don't.

I'm a consultant; I get to vote (when I can afford to attend enough
meetings).  And all of my customers are members of the committee,
either as ISO rep's or directly as ANSI (or both).

In fact, the main restriction for voting (and it is an ANSI
restriction, not one created by the committee) is that you must have
attended one of the last two meetings.  Since most of the meetings
mean a trans-Atlantic flight, this cost far outweighs the $300 a year.
--
James Kanze                             email: kanze@us-es.sel.de
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue du Faisan, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                   -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

Does the Borland Library Ref doc section on the string class specify which
functions or whatever are not part of the ANSI standard string class?

In article <1994Jan19.221526.2959@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
>In article <rfgCJtIyG.BJy@netcom.com>, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
writes:
>> In article <CJrzp8.9o0@world.std.com> ssimpson@world.std.com (Steve G
Simpson) writes:

>> >couldn't it also be available here so people can test it, try it, comment
>> >on it?
>
>> Surely you jest.  That would be too... well... egalitarian.  If proposals
>> were distributed widely (and to the great unwashed masses) then the
>> committee might end up getting more input from the end-user community...
>> and we can't have that now can we?

>Various corporate interests _do_ send representatives and have members, and
>anyone who's serious enough to pony up $600/yr can become a member or an
>Observer member.  (The $600 can be reduced to $300 at ANSI's discretion if
>you can show that the `international fee' is a hardship.)  That seems awfully
>egalitarian to me.

  What would I get for my $600? I was under the impression that the only
membership I would be eligible for would be an Observer membership since I am
a consultant, and not even currently working in C++. I was also under the
impression that the only thing I would get out of it would be the chance to
attend the meetings, if I could gather up the money to go. As an observer I
couldn't vote or do anything else, so why bother?

  If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

Thanx,
Ralph Trickey

In article <CJu1xG.5z3@world.std.com>,
Steve G Simpson <ssimpson@world.std.com> wrote:
>When I saw that the string class was in Borland 4.0 (Beta at the time) I
>assumed it was THE ANSI string class not Borland's interpretation of what
>they thought the ANSI _proposal_ was.  Being on the internet for only a week,
>I was suprised to see here questions about the string class such as
>"such-and-such function in Borland's string class - Is that part of the
>ANSI standard or Borland's own enhancement to the standard [...]
>"Hey, such-and-such is not part of the ANSI standard string class.  If you
>want to do that, inherit your own class from string and add whatever features
>you want.  Either that or get the committe to adopt your enhancements."

I believe Borland documents what features (eg, a constructor taking a
Windows ResourceID) are Borland-specific.  I don't really mind these
non-standard features being part of their string class as long as they
document it.  It's not much different than <string.h> containing
strdup() -- if I don't want to use it I don't.

>I say again.  If the committe has adopted a proposal, then that proposal,
>header file, whatever, has probably been circulated around to the members
>in some kind of electronic form.  How about posting the proposal, or
>whatever, here so people can discuss it, etc.

I too would love to see everything the committee is doing, but
remember that most committee members are already overworked by being
on the committee.  They probably don't want to increase their workload
by posting the committee happenings and fielding the inevitable
questions and criticisms.

Don't worry, people *are* discussing and debating the proposals (on a
daily basis -- committee members are on a mailing list).  Some of the
best C++ minds in the world are on the committee.  I believe anyone on
the committee (or who works for a company that's on the committee) is
free to post the committee happenings and (noncopyrighted?)
proposals, but no one person has ever done that on a regular basis and
I don't expect it to happen.

Btw, <cstring.h> (Borland's "ANSI" string class header) was on the
Borland BBS the last time I checked.  Unfortunately the ftp site has
not been updated recently.

>Borland 4.0 has already been released with a string class.  Is it ANSI
>standard or not?

That's a trick question: THERE IS NO ANSI STANDARD yet.  You can get
the ARM and you can get the latest version of the Working Paper (see
the c.l.c++ FAQ), but there isn't even an official ANSI/ISO draft
yet.  I'm not even sure any version of the Working Paper, but possibly
the latest, discusses the string class.  Even if it did, there's
certainly no guarantee that it won't undergo changes, and maybe has
since Borland froze its version for release.

>By the time we see new changes in C++ Report, non-standard standards may
>already have been implemented by vendors.  I'd like to see the proposals
>for approved changes posted here so people get a chance to comment on
>them and also to help catch mistakes by vendors.

I personally would wait until at least the feature/change is in the WP
before I start complaining to compiler writers that it's not
implemented correctly (it's not stamped official, but at least it's in
black and white).  A proposal is likely to go through some changes
before being voted on and accepted.  If I were submitting a proposal I
think I woiuld post it widely and encourage C++ users to pressure
their compiler writers into accepting it, but then again such tactics
might backfire on me -- I don't know the dynamics of the ANSI/ISO
committee.

Jamshid Afshar
jamshid@ses.com

In article <trickr.82.000C293A@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com> trickr@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com (Ralph Trickey) writes:
>  What would I get for my $600? I was under the impression that the only
>membership I would be eligible for would be an Observer membership since I am
>a consultant, and not even currently working in C++.

ANSI committee voting membership is open to anyone.  We have had several
voting consultants on X3J13.

The only restriction is "one company = one vote", and if you don't work for
the same company as another member, you count as a separate company.  I
don't know offhand if they restrict a consultant who happens to be
contracted to a company that has its own representative as well.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

I asked for more information on this one too, only I've not seen any traffic in
reply yet.

Anyway, why not put it in the FAQ?  Code is shipping which is based on this
stuff, and as a relative newcomer to C++ development, I'm keen to ensure that
my time's not going to be wasted by developing my own strings library to find
that the ANSI one is better :)

Still not seen any *info* on the standard, just noise :)

Stuart

In article <trickr.82.000C293A@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com>, trickr@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com (Ralph Trickey) writes:
> In article <1994Jan19.221526.2959@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> >In article <rfgCJtIyG.BJy@netcom.com>, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
> writes:
> >> In article <CJrzp8.9o0@world.std.com> ssimpson@world.std.com (Steve G
> Simpson) writes:

> >> ...If [x3j16/WG21] proposals were distributed widely ... then the
> >> committee might end up getting more input from the end-user community...
> >> and we can't have that now can we?

> >Various corporate interests _do_ send representatives and have members, and
> >anyone who's serious enough to pony up $600/yr can become a member or an
> >Observer member.  (The $600 can be reduced to $300 at ANSI's discretion if
> >you can show that the `international fee' is a hardship.) ...

>   What would I get for my $600? I was under the impression that the only
> membership I would be eligible for would be an Observer membership since I am
> a consultant, and not even currently working in C++. I was also under the
> impression that the only thing I would get out of it would be the chance to
> attend the meetings, if I could gather up the money to go. As an observer I
> couldn't vote or do anything else, so why bother?

First, you get to take part (if you want) in the email discussions that
go on almost continually during meetings.

Second, you get the mailings before and after the meetings that show where
the working paper is going, and what proposals are before the committee.

Third, if you attend the meetings (any of them) you can take part in the work
even though you don't have an official vote.  And Observers can have an
influence if they work with one or another of the `working groups' that meet
to consider, refine, and recommend proposals to the whole committee.  In my
experience, anyone who is willing to work _with_ people will be heard.  He
may not convince anyone, but he'll get a fair hearing.

If you can afford to do it at all, the price is very good for the privilege
you get--and that includes working with the likes of Stroustrup, Koenig,
Plauger, and Plum.

Of course, it will help if you are doing C++ so you have a better feel for
the effects of what you are doing ...
--
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end    Mark Terribile
 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
 (Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)

In article <rfgCJtIyG.BJy@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:

> >Yes but the lead time for mags is too long.  If there has been a proposal
> >made to the ANSI comm.  then it must be available in some electronic form.

> Don't bet on it.

> As I understand it, the ISO (International Standards Organization) actually
> *prohibits* standardization committees from requiring proposal submissions
> in electronic form.

I don't know if ISO has such a requirement, but ANSI certainly does.
There are some good reasons for it too.

First, computer-related standards are in a distinct minority.  If they
were to allow separate rules for each kind of standard, it would be a vast
explosion of bureaucracy.

Second, requiring electronic submissions would disenfranchise people without
appropriate computing facilities.  For example, one of the members of the C++
committee works for a company that until recently prohibited any kind of
electronic communications at all across the company boundaries.  No
electronic mail, period.  Recently, that company has relented somewhat
and now allows outgoing electronic mail -- when that mail is transcribed
by a secretary.  Incoming electronic mail is printed on paper and delivered
in that form.

> (One wonders why they don't instead require all submissions on hand written
> papyrus!  I just hope they don't insist on us going back to counting on
> our fingers.)

Futile speculation.  I will point out, though, that I recently saw an article
in the New York Times to the effect that in France it is universal practice
to insist on hand-written cover letters accompanying employment applications,
so that the applicant's writing can be subjected to analysis.  Perhaps we have
not come as far from papyrus as you think.

> >couldn't it also be available here so people can test it, try it, comment
> >on it?

> Surely you jest.  That would be too... well... egalitarian.  If proposals
> were distributed widely (and to the great unwashed masses) then the
> committee might end up getting more input from the end-user community...
> and we can't have that now can we?

Certainly not.  It's hard enough to obtain a semblance of consensus among the
seventy or so people who are dedicated to come to meetings.  Can you imagine
the chaos that would ensue if all the 100,000 or so readers of comp.lang.c++
had an equal voice?

The C++ community as a whole is much too large for `government by town meeting.'
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

trickr@uh2372p03.daytonoh.ncr.com (Ralph Trickey @ NCR)

 > >Various corporate interests _do_ send representatives and have members, and
 > >anyone who's serious enough to pony up $600/yr can become a member or an
 > >Observer member.  (The $600 can be reduced to $300 at ANSI's discretion if
 > >you can show that the `international fee' is a hardship.)  That seems awfully
 > >egalitarian to me.
 >
 >   What would I get for my $600? I was under the impression that the only
 > membership I would be eligible for would be an Observer membership since I am
 > a consultant, and not even currently working in C++. I was also under the
 > impression that the only thing I would get out of it would be the chance to
 > attend the meetings, if I could gather up the money to go. As an observer I
 > couldn't vote or do anything else, so why bother?
 >
 >   If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

Knowledge of C++ isn't a requirement of full (voting) membership of the committee.

Not being an employee of a company that already has a representative is a
requirement (in that case you can only be an observer or an altenate representative).

You get 6 mailings of material a year (about 10 inches double sided in all).

You get to vote at the second meeting you attend.

 - Bjarne

When I saw that the string class was in Borland 4.0 (Beta at the time) I
assumed it was THE ANSI string class not Borland's interpretation of what
they thought the ANSI _proposal_ was.  Being on the internet for only a week,
I was suprised to see here questions about the string class such as
"such-and-such function in Borland's string class - Is that part of the
ANSI standard or Borland's own enhancement to the standard - I don't remember
seeing such-and-such in the proposal".  Things like this should not be
happening!  If the proposal or whatever was made available to Borland was
posted here, someone could have said to Borland (back during the beta):
"Hey, such-and-such is not part of the ANSI standard string class.  If you
want to do that, inherit your own class from string and add whatever features
you want.  Either that or get the committe to adopt your enhancements."

I say again.  If the committe has adopted a proposal, then that proposal,
header file, whatever, has probably been circulated around to the members
in some kind of electronic form.  How about posting the proposal, or
whatever, here so people can discuss it, etc.

Borland 4.0 has already been released with a string class.  Is it ANSI
standard or not?

By the time we see new changes in C++ Report, non-standard standards may
already have been implemented by vendors.  I'd like to see the proposals
for approved changes posted here so people get a chance to comment on
them and also to help catch mistakes by vendors.

In article <CJrzp8.9o0@world.std.com> ssimpson@world.std.com (Steve G Simpson) writes:
>Dag Bruck (dag@control.lth.se) wrote:
>: In <comp.std.c++> davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (David Chatterton) writes:
>: >With the developing standard going on around us, is there any way to obtain
>: >information concerning some of the additions to the standard including:
>
>: The C++ Report (published by SIGS) has had a series of good articles
>: reporting on current C++ standarization issues.
>
>Yes but the lead time for mags is too long.  If there has been a proposal
>made to the ANSI comm.  then it must be available in some electronic form.

Don't bet on it.

As I understand it, the ISO (International Standards Organization) actually
*prohibits* standardization committees from requiring proposal submissions
in electronic form.

(One wonders why they don't instead require all submissions on hand written
papyrus!  I just hope they don't insist on us going back to counting on
our fingers.)

>couldn't it also be available here so people can test it, try it, comment
>on it?

Surely you jest.  That would be too... well... egalitarian.  If proposals
were distributed widely (and to the great unwashed masses) then the
committee might end up getting more input from the end-user community...
and we can't have that now can we?

--

-- 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 <1994Jan18.173426.997@borland.com> pete@borland.com (Pete Becker) writes:
//  The current working document permits vendors to extend classes
// directly, without having to go through the circumlocution of a derived class.
// If you want to write portable code you should use only the standard functions.
//  -- Pete

Seems like a big mistake to me.
Among other things, this has the unfortunate side effect that if any
user-defined conversions are added to the 'standard' class, then this
may break a lot of code. Even if that code uses only standard functions.
Compiler builders should know better how to reuse code.

Bart.
--

                               - = * = -
* Bart van Tongeren                                      Lorentzweg 1 *
| Technical University of Delft                         2628 CJ Delft |
| Applied Physics Department, Spin Imaging Group      The Netherlands |
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
| email tong@si.tn.tudelft.nl  voice +31-15-784059  fax +31-15-624978 |
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
--

                               - = * = -
* Bart van Tongeren                                      Lorentzweg 1 *
| Technical University of Delft                         2628 CJ Delft |

In article <CJu1xG.5z3@world.std.com>,
Steve G Simpson <ssimpson@world.std.com> wrote:
>If the proposal or whatever was made available to Borland was
>posted here, someone could have said to Borland (back during the beta):
>"Hey, such-and-such is not part of the ANSI standard string class.  If you
>want to do that, inherit your own class from string and add whatever features
>you want.  Either that or get the committe to adopt your enhancements."

 The current working document permits vendors to extend classes
directly, without having to go through the circumlocution of a derived class.
If you want to write portable code you should use only the standard functions.
 -- Pete

I didn't know that.  I bet alot of other people don't either.  I figure if
Borland has the ANSI standard string class I'd have thought that I was
writing portable code!  Without the standard header being published, I have
no way of knowing if I'm using standard functions or a standard class or not.

In article <2hd7ji$gtm@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (David Chatterton) writes:
> With the developing standard going on around us, is there any way to obtain
> information concerning some of the additions to the standard including:
>
[...]
>
> David Chatterton     | "A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did
> Comp Sci Department, | not invent him, I did not even want him, though I like
> Monash Uni, Clayton, | him, but there he came, walking out of the woods of
> Australia, 3168.     | Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir."
> Phone: 03 565 5375   | - in a letter from JRR Tolkien to his son, 4 May 1944.
> email: davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au

I highly recommend subscribing to the C++ Report published by SIGS. It has regular
updates on the standard. For example, he latest issue discusses name spaces.

Hope this helps
Hartmut
--
+==============================|==============================+
| Hartmut Kocher               |                              |
| Technical Consultant         | All opinions expressed here  |
| Rational GmbH                | are my own.                  |
| Rosenstrasse 7               |                              |
| 82049 Pullach im Isartal     | I know you guessed it,       |
| Germany                      | but it keeps my lawyer happy.|
| Email: hwk@rational.com      |                              |
+==============================|==============================+

In article <rfgCJtIyG.BJy@netcom.com>, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
> In article <CJrzp8.9o0@world.std.com> ssimpson@world.std.com (Steve G Simpson) writes:

> >Yes but the lead time for mags is too long.  If there has been a proposal
> >made to the ANSI comm.  then it must be available in some electronic form.

> Don't bet on it.

> As I understand it, the ISO (International Standards Organization) actually
> *prohibits* standardization committees from requiring proposal submissions
> in electronic form.
 ...
> >couldn't it also be available here so people can test it, try it, comment
> >on it?

> Surely you jest.  That would be too... well... egalitarian.  If proposals
> were distributed widely (and to the great unwashed masses) then the
> committee might end up getting more input from the end-user community...
> and we can't have that now can we?

Ron, have you actually toted up all the correspondence the committee itself
has generated?  I just uncompressed my archived copies and found over
30 megabytes.  That ain't just whistlin' Dixie, y'know.

Various corporate interests _do_ send representatives and have members, and
anyone who's serious enough to pony up $600/yr can become a member or an
Observer member.  (The $600 can be reduced to $300 at ANSI's discretion if
you can show that the `international fee' is a hardship.)  That seems awfully
egalitarian to me.

Of course, what is needed is people who will pay their money and work,
rather than paying their money and talking ...
--
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end    Mark Terribile
 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
 (Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)

With the developing standard going on around us, is there any way to obtain
information concerning some of the additions to the standard including:

- The "ANSI C++ String class" which Borland 4.0 supports which I have never
  heard of.
- The name conflict resolution proposal (what it accepted?)
- The new bool type

and any other developments? So far I have found papers on RTTI but nothing
else so far.

Thanks.

David


David Chatterton     | "A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did
Comp Sci Department, | not invent him, I did not even want him, though I like
Monash Uni, Clayton, | him, but there he came, walking out of the woods of
Australia, 3168.     | Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir."
Phone: 03 565 5375   | - in a letter from JRR Tolkien to his son, 4 May 1944.
email: davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au

In <comp.std.c++> davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (David Chatterton) writes:
>With the developing standard going on around us, is there any way to obtain
>information concerning some of the additions to the standard including:

The C++ Report (published by SIGS) has had a series of good articles
reporting on current C++ standarization issues.

     -- Dag

Dag Bruck (dag@control.lth.se) wrote:
: In <comp.std.c++> davidc@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (David Chatterton) writes:
: >With the developing standard going on around us, is there any way to obtain
: >information concerning some of the additions to the standard including:

: The C++ Report (published by SIGS) has had a series of good articles
: reporting on current C++ standarization issues.

Yes but the lead time for mags is too long.  If there has been a proposal
nade to the ANSI comm.  then it must be available in some electronic form.
couldn't it also be available here so people can test it, try it, comment
on it?
  - Steve