Board index » cppbuilder » Re: An interesting reading - objection to the fast track C/C++

Re: An interesting reading - objection to the fast track C/C++


2006-02-04 06:44:48 AM
cppbuilder50
Alisdair Meredith[TeamB] wrote:
Quote
Andre Kaufmann wrote:
[...]
>The C++/CLI standard should include the strict requirement of
>"for each" to be also usable with STL lists. So that the Microsoft
>extension will be also compilable under BCB as soon as it has
>implemented the C++/CLI standard.

If BSI were to suggest that, we would have to review the entire
document and propose similar changes for every issue we could imagine.
There is a 30 day window to prepare and post all objections, and that
is a mighty big document to review.
Agreed, too much stuff for 30 days.
Quote
On top of which, I am not sure we can post such recommendations anyway.
We are provided with a document to either accept or reject. This is a
fast-track proposal, and the process assumes that ECMA have done all
work necessary to produce a good standard, so ISO either agreed it
wants to endorse it, or not.
Sad. Only yes or no :-(
Quote
There is a lot to like about C++/CLI, think the comittee responsible
Besides I don't like everything in C++/CLI. But some features are "nice
to have"
Quote
have done a fantastic job, and I really would like to see it become an
ISO standard. I also believe the name will cause a lot of confusion,
as do a lot of other BSI members. Hence the objection.
Agreed. But since C++/CLI is an extension to C++, though not all code
can be compiled in "C++/CLI" mode, IMHO they are legitimated to refer to
it in the name too. But it mustn't be in the first place ;-), so far I
could agree to a name change that would cause less confusion too.
Quote
BTW, the document we are commenting on was prepaped as an internal
communication for BSI/ISO. I am not sure how it ended up on Bjarne's
site. I don't believe there is anything untoward here, but please bear
in mind the intended target of the document <g>
I'm still wondering. Since Bjarne IIRC was involved (at least in
discussions with H. Sutter) in some parts of the C++/CLI standard, he
could have perhaps express potential annoyances about the name before it
was passed to ECMA as a fast track to ISO standard.
(Shouldn't be a valuation of Bjarne. I don't know anything about Bjarnes
role in C++/CLI standardization and regarding the document - I'm just
wondering)
Quote

I think a lot of people are in agreement on the principle. Deciding
'where it makes sense' is the interesting part ;?
<g>
Andre
 
 

Re:Re: An interesting reading - objection to the fast track C/C++

In article <43e21dfd$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Duane Hebert wrote:
Quote
FWIW, I would much prefer that Borland spend resources
on improving compatability with the existing standard,
rather than implementing extensions for a different
language.
Hear! Hear!
Compliance with the existing standard has to be the first goal, before
resources can be spared for other ventures.
Cheers,
Daniel.
 

Re:Re: An interesting reading - objection to the fast track C/C++

Alisdair Meredith[TeamB] wrote:
Quote
There is a lot to like about C++/CLI, think the comittee responsible
have done a fantastic job, and I really would like to see it become an
ISO standard. I also believe the name will cause a lot of confusion,
as do a lot of other BSI members. Hence the objection.
Alisdair,
Why do you want to see it as an ISO standard? ISO will not change it any. What's the
point?
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: An interesting reading - objection to the fast track C/C++

Randall Parker wrote:
Quote
Alisdair,

Why do you want to see it as an ISO standard? ISO will not change it
any. What's the point?
It is a good standard, and should be recognised.
It was created with the intent of becoming an ISO standard, so that
others would respect and implement it. MS could have done this work
purely as an internal project, but chose to put it before the standards
bodies for approval. Indeed, they worked with other partners on the
ECMA panel to make it the best possible standard for portable code,
with features put in to support non-MS implementations of the CLR (such
as support for 32 bit wchar_t types on Posix implementations)
Given it is already an ECMA standard, we could leave it there. But ISO
is seen as 'the gold standard' of standards, and was always the goal.
I see no reason to deny that standard, once we acknowledge that this is
a language base-on/inspired by C++, rather than another version of C++
itself.
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)