Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!mephisto!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!edison!rja From: rja@edison.cho.ge.com (rja) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Low-Level services in ANSI C++ Message-ID: <1990Aug10.171558.9043@edison.cho.ge.com> Date: 10 Aug 90 17:15:58 GMT Reply-To: rja Followup-To: comp.std.c++ Distribution: comp Organization: GE-Fanuc North America Lines: 29 Some articles here have recently raised the matter of what classes and library functions should be part of the ANSI C++ standard. I would hope that the ANSI working group would follow the lead of X3J11 as to what is appropriate for the language standard and what things are appropriate to leave to the IEEE 1003.* POSIX standards groups. The separation that IEEE 1003.1 & ANSI X3.159 achieved was really fairly good. Should there be a difference between "traditional" UNIX \(tm functions and semantics and those in approved POSIX standards that would actually affect C++ the language, I would hope that they would be resolved in favour of POSIX since all major vendours have committed to becoming POSIX compliant. I expect that there aren't any such problems since C++ is a language and hence should be defined in an OS independent manner. I would hope that the 1003.1 and P1003.1a interface definitions are compilable with C++ already. There seems to be a tendency in the postings here towards adding a lot of classes to the standard library. I'm concerned that we'll end up with more than are really appropriate and especially concerned that we'll get stuck with some that aren't as well thought out as they need to be and hence lack generality and portability to the world at large. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Internet (vastly preferable) : rja@edison.CHO.GE.COM UUCP (if you've got no choice): ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja ------------------------------------------------------------------------------