> ... we are talking about the standard for C++.  ... this standard remains
> to be defined, and is independent from the existing standard for C,

Well, not quite independent.  The goals statement adopted by X3J16 last
March includes a statement that looked a lot like this:

    The standard will be based on the C++ Reference Manual
    (X3J16/90-0020) and the C Programming Language Standard
    (ANS X3.159-1989).

    The ISO C Standard will become an additional base document
    when available.

    The C++ Reference Manual will take precedence when the
    base documents disagree, except where the committee decides
    otherwise.

(The C++ Reference Manual that this refers to is not Ellis & Stroustrup's
book, but rather Stroustrup's "UNIX System V AT&T C++ Language System
Release 2.1 Product Reference Manual, Select Code 307-159".  It is
nearly identical to E&S minus the annotations.)

It seems clear to me that the intent is to make ANSI C++ "As Close As
Possible to ANSI C, but No Closer".  Remember, X3J16's job is not to
design a new language.
--
    Speaking neither for Sun nor for X3J16...
Doug Landauer - Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Languages - landauer@eng.sun.com
    Matt Groening on C++:  "Our language is one great salad."

In article <140068@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> landauer@morocco.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) writes:
>(The C++ Reference Manual that this refers to is not Ellis & Stroustrup's
>book, but rather Stroustrup's "UNIX System V AT&T C++ Language System
>Release 2.1 Product Reference Manual, Select Code 307-159".  It is
>nearly identical to E&S minus the annotations.)

Yes but, read the E&S before debating aspects of C++ standardization in
this forum.  The annotations are very helpful in understanding the design
tradeoffs in C++.  Read E&S, and let's try to keep the debate on track:
minor changes and/or clarifications to the existing C++ languages that
might reasonably make it into the C++ standard!