landauer@morocco.Sun.COM (Doug Landauer) (08/03/90)
> ... 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."
jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) (08/07/90)
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!