Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: ANSI C++ and ANSI C (was Re: "packed" objects)
Message-ID: <56346@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 6 Aug 90 21:53:24 GMT
References: <56159@microsoft.UUCP> <56165@microsoft.UUCP> <6785@netxcom.DHL.COM> <JEREMY.90Aug1084311@chook.ua.oz.au> <6815@netxcom.DHL.COM> <MCGRATH.90Aug1225852@paris.Berkeley.EDU> <140068@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 11

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!