Topic: request for info about last ANSI c++ committee meeting
Author: helmke@babbage.csus.edu (Michael Helmke)
Date: 16 Jul 91 18:30:49 GMT Raw View
I havn't yet read any postings about the last ANSI C++ meeting and am
wondering what happened, what was decided, argued about, or voted on.
I heard a vauge rumor that AT&T C++ v3 had been voted on but the source
wouldn't say very much (which I thought was strange, I thought these meetings
were supposed to be public). My main worry is that C++ 3.0 was accepted
as the standard and everything was finalized (I hope this is an irrational
worry :-)
so, anyone care to comment on anything that happened?
thanks in advance...
Michael Helmke
2nd year senior Computer Science Student, CSUS
helmke@babbage.ecs.csus.edu
Author: dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck)
Date: 17 Jul 91 09:06:32 GMT Raw View
There have been a series of very useful reports from the X3J16
meetings in The C++ Report, and I expect there will be one from the
June 1991 meeting as well.
In article <1991Jul16.183049.15234@csusac.csus.edu> helmke@babbage.csus.edu (Michael Helmke) writes:
>I heard a vauge rumor that AT&T C++ v3 had been voted on but the source
>wouldn't say very much (which I thought was strange, I thought these meetings
>were supposed to be public).
The reason your source doesn't want to say much is that he/she is
completely wrong (or you got it wrong :-). If you _really_ want to
know what goes on, you can become an observing member; for $250 you
will get more mailings than you ever wanted.
Dag M. Br\"uck
Host of June 1991 meeting
Author: bmk@m2.csc.ti.com (Brian M Kennedy)
Date: 17 Jul 91 13:35:13 GMT Raw View
>= helmke@babbage.csus.edu =>
>I havn't yet read any postings about the last ANSI C++ meeting and am
>wondering what happened, what was decided, argued about, or voted on.
>I heard a vauge rumor that AT&T C++ v3 had been voted on but the source
>wouldn't say very much (which I thought was strange, I thought these meetings
>were supposed to be public).
Please do not publish vague rumors -- they can lead to a lot of destructive
misinformation.
>= helmke@babbage.csus.edu =>
>My main worry is that C++ 3.0 was accepted
>as the standard and everything was finalized (I hope this is an irrational
>worry :-)
It is beyond irrational. First, the ANSI committe is standardizing a
*language*, not a compiler. Second, the AT&T v2.1 product reference
manual (which is only roughly related to cfront 2.1 :-( and is the
reference manual part of the "ARM" [Ellis & Stroustrup]) and the ANSI C
standard were accepted as the base documents for the standardization
process. Each individual proposed change to the base document is hashed
out in working groups and must be voted on by the entire committee to
be incorporated. The committee will not suddenly vote to accept some
new document as the standard. The standard will evolve linearly from
the base documents.
Lastly, the committee is a long way from finalizing the standard. There
are many meetings and a great deal of work in its future.
One more comment -- although there are a number of AT&T employees who have
very strong and important voices on the committee (and rightly so, they
are some of the most qualified), in the end AT&T has only one vote.
Thus, AT&T is in roughly the same position as other compiler vendors in
chasing the progress of the standardization process. (I say roughly
because AT&T clearly has more C++ experts than any other company.)
== Brian M. Kennedy <bmk@csc.ti.com> ==
== Computer Systems Laboratory ========
== Computer Science Center ============
== Texas Instruments ==================
Author: comeau@ditka.Chicago.COM (Greg Comeau)
Date: 18 Jul 91 04:24:56 GMT Raw View
In article <1991Jul16.183049.15234@csusac.csus.edu> helmke@babbage.csus.edu (Michael Helmke) writes:
>I heard a vauge rumor that AT&T C++ v3 had been voted on but the source
Since the details of AT&T C++ 3.0 cfront are currently not available for mass
consumption, I can assure you that the ANSI C++ committee did not vote
on it knowingly. As to unknowingly, it's release by reseller's will be
the only mechanism through with to reveal that. Having said that, it's
worth point out that although there was much technical discussion at the
last meeting, very few formal technical decisions were made.
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418
Producers of Comeau C++ 2.1
Here:attmail.com!csanta!comeau / BIX:comeau / CIS:72331,3421
Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310