Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Pre and Post actions - an idea.
Keywords: Capsules C++
Message-ID: <2643A5A1.25658@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 6 May 90 04:18:41 GMT
References: <1990May4.195250.9662@xavax.com> <131@xurilka.UUCP>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 36

In article <131@xurilka.UUCP> ouij@xurilka.UUCP (exhausted jazz surfer) writes:
>
>I ,repeat, the capsules stuff is not intended as an extension
>to C++.  Nor should of it been brought up in this newsgroup.
>
>It is a new feature about to be added to Concurrent C++.
>We have no intention of modifying C++, that is left to its prophet
>and/or  ansi committe.

[...]

>
>Before people continue making rash judgments about Capsules
>considering that only a snippet was presented, get a copy of
>the paper ``Capsules: A shared memory mechanism'' [gehani 88]
>and lets  move the discussion  out this group.

To say that what happens in Concurrent C++ has no influence on (or should
have no influence) on C++ (and in particular ANSI C++) is, IMHO, not correct.

This is almost the same as saying that C++ had no influence on ANSI C (and
we all know that it *did* have an influence).  Obviously, whenever you
talk about a superset of a given language (and especially a language
for which a standard has not yet been codified) you are talking about
things which represent possible good and useful additions to the base
language itself.

I see no reason why a discussion of Concurrent C++ features should be
kept out of comp.lang.c++.  Indeed, I'd say that discussing such things
here may have a beneficial effect upon the final form of the ANSI C++
standard.  (Well... I'm hopeful of that anyway.)


// Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu)
// C++ Entomologist
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.