Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!amdahl!dlb!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: <None>
Message-ID: <251@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 8 Feb 88 23:39:27 GMT
References: <47@iravcl.ira.uka.de>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 31

in article <47@iravcl.ira.uka.de>, harst@iravcl.ira.uka.de says:
> Posted: Thu Feb  4 15:43:17 1988
> Organisation: Universitaet Karlsruhe, IRA, F.R. Germany
> 
> Hello !
> 
> I'd be rather interrested in having either a complete and recent
> Definition of the C++ standard ...

So would I.  So would I.

Anybody at ATT got your ears on?  Bjarne, you there?

Is anyone working on such a thing?  Or is C++ standardization 
going to follow the example of every other language you can think of and 
wind up mired in a committee years from now?  Perhaps a committee which
wants to redefine the language?  Now's the time!  (Hip. Hip. Rally 'round.)

To those who say, "The language is still evolving. It is too early for
a standard. Let's use MY version of the compiler as a defacto standard,
for the time being," I would like to say, "Phfghtt!"  But of course,
I am far too polite to say that. :-)

Write out a standard language definition now.  If you add features, ammend 
the standard.  If (perish the thought) you find that you have to change the
way something works or remove a feature, then change the definition.  It's not
a happy thing to do, but at least there is an "audit" trail recording the
changes.


		- djones