Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!ukma!rex!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!pasteur!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: namespace (rethought & reiterated)
Message-ID: <11496@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 27 Feb 91 18:30:59 GMT
References: <4e2Gwz9f@cs.psu.edu> <1991Feb6.155227.553@mathcs.sjsu.edu> <592@taumet.com> <1991Feb10.024111.8967@mathcs.sjsu.edu>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Distribution: usa
Lines: 17

In article <1991Feb10.024111.8967@mathcs.sjsu.edu>, horstman@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann) writes:
|> In article <592@taumet.com> mike@taumet.UUCP (Michael S. Ball) writes:
|> >The ANSI committee doesn't feel that it has a mandate to develop a new
|> >language, but rather to standardize an existing one.  
|> 
|> And I think it is unfortunate that the ANSI committee feels that way.
|> Clearly the ANSI C committee did not, and as a result C became a much
|> better language.

Even the ANSI C committee didn't feel they had a mandate to create a
new language.  The new features added (such as function prototypes)
weren't invented out of thin air.  Instead, they were taken from an
existing language: C++.

--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck