home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!mole-end!mat
- From: mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end
- Subject: Re: Committee Members -> What do you think?
- Message-ID: <1992Jul24.065310.1504@uunet.uu.net!mole-end>
- Summary: A minor correction
- Organization: :
- References: <1992Jul15.144839.18494@sco.COM> <1992Jul23.010605.16404@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:53:10 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Jul23.010605.16404@microsoft.com>, jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:
-
- > Again, your statements fly in the face of the reality of the committee's
- > actions. If ALL "changes" to the language were equally routed through
- > the "extensions" committee and ALL changes to the language were equally
- > placed on the extensions WG queue for a couple years and if ALL changes
- > were required to be written up in detail by their proposers, subject to
- > days and days of "extensive" extensions WG detail analysis, THEN your
- > statements would make sense. BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, there are many changes
- > to the language that are happening without going through the extensions
- > group. The work of the libraries WG being one example. "Humpty Dumpty"
- > const being another example....
-
- By ``Humpy-Dumpty const'' I assume you mean the proposal for ~const members,
- which aren't quite Humpty-Dumpty as the programmer declares AHEAD OF TIME
- what const is to mean, rather than letting the reader discover afterward.
- That proposal IS going through the Extensions WG. It resulted in about five
- hours discussion in Toronto, with the WG interested in the core of the
- proposal, but not in all of the secondary parts. Issues that were discovered
- are being discussed by email among the WG members right now.
- --
- (This man's opinions are his own.)
- From mole-end Mark Terribile
-
- uunet!mole-end!mat, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
-