Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!uunet!olivea!apple!netcom!sjsumcs!horstman
From: horstman@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: namespace (rethought & reiterated)
Message-ID: <1991Mar2.000018.3360@mathcs.sjsu.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 91 00:00:18 GMT
References: <592@taumet.com> <1991Feb10.024111.8967@mathcs.sjsu.edu> <11496@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: San Jose State University - Math/CS Dept.
Lines: 39

In article <11496@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>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++.
>
>--
This is a fascinating discussion, and it is easy to project one's
own hopes and wishes into the ANSI process.

Is ANSI C++ to be a codification of the language, as it exists today, 
warts and all? Then clearly exception handling should NOT be part of it.

Should ANSI C++ radically reform the syntax and semantics? I don't think
so, but neither does anyone else.

Should ANSI C++ give DIRECTION to the language, by eliminating some warts
(instead of codifying them) and providing genuine improvements (like ANSI
C did with function prototypes?) I think it should, but obviously many
people disagree: "It would break existing code..." 

By the way, Joe's argument really doesn't hold a lot of water: How would
we all feel if ANSI took over great ideas from Eiffel (an existing language...)?

Anyway, I think the ANSI committee is by its very nature inclined to be
very conservative--there are many vendors and users in it with a great
interest in keeping the status quo. Some netters share that attitude, but
others do not and keep on proposing new ideas (many of them useful, I think.)

Cay