Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Reference implementation of C++?
Message-ID: <12374@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 9 Nov 89 04:16:43 GMT
References: <9.UUL1.3#5127@aladdin.com> <12371@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <4555@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18

In article <4555@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> arnold@emory.UUCP (Arnold D. Robbins {EUCC}) writes:

>Of course, the key words in the quote are "Lacking a more formal definition..."
>It is to be strongly hoped that the C++ Reference Manual which has just
>become available will be the final arbiter of C++ semantics, not "whatever
>cfront does".

I find it hard to believe that a document written in a natural language
will provide a complete, unambiguous semantic definition of a programming
language. The last time that was tried was Ada and even though they
intended the Ada Language Reference Manual to become the ultimate
semantic definition, they still needed a committee to resolve ambiguities
and inconsistencies within the LRM and the interaction among the most obscure
Ada features.
    
Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com