In article <C0tBDn.HF0@apollo.hp.com> vinoski@apollo.hp.com (Stephen Vinoski) writes:
|Let's stop proposing extensions and standardize what we already have.
|There are enough holes in the current language definition to keep the
|committee busy until 1995.

Spoken as one who does not consider filling a hole the same thing
as making an extension.

|As Jim Waldo said at the Usenix C++ Conference last August
|(paraphrased here without permission, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind),
|anyone proposing a language extension should have to submit it to the
|committee on one of their kidneys.  That way, they have to *really*
|want the extension in the language, and they'll be limited to
|proposing at most two extensions.  :-/

If I [someone] were to propose a reduction in the language, would
that leave me [them] with three kidneys?

In article <1993Jan13.174051.21288@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
[in reference to nested functions]
> Well, David: you could be right. But I intend to
>propose their introduction anyhow.
>
> I know of one prominent and well respected committee
>member who supports their introduction:
>anyone else care to indicate their position?
>
> Anyone who wants to help please email me.
>Anyone opposed too.
>
> Might as well throw in closure of a function over a member
>at the same time. (Can I call these 'Bound-Members'?)

Yeah, might as well just throw in whatever you like.  We won't have a
viable C++ language standard until the year 2012, but at least it will
be complete. :-(

Is anyone else under the impression that there are already enough
extension proposals before the ANSI C++ committee?  Reading the
post-Boston mailing was pretty depressing, due to all the new stuff
that seems to be getting into the language.

Let's stop proposing extensions and standardize what we already have.
There are enough holes in the current language definition to keep the
committee busy until 1995.

As Jim Waldo said at the Usenix C++ Conference last August
(paraphrased here without permission, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind),
anyone proposing a language extension should have to submit it to the
committee on one of their kidneys.  That way, they have to *really*
want the extension in the language, and they'll be limited to
proposing at most two extensions.  :-/

-steve