🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.025948.23000@lucid.com> jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz) writes:
|We seem to be arguing as much about the meaning of terms
|and the model that should be used to define the semantics of C++
|as we are about what the semantics are or should be.  I don't
|think this is a fruitful discussion, so I'm going to take a different
|tack and present my point of view solely in terms of code.

So what's the point?  I can accept your code and still reserve
judgement to disagree with any implications you might try to push
forward from you particular code example.  One cannot reasonably
standardize from example.  ANSI-C realized this and avoided the
mistake of providing a conformance suite.

We do not have to agree on terms nor model.  If you put forward a set
of terms and model that I [and others] agree has to be acceptibly
implemented by all conforming C++ compilers using the "as-if" rule,
then you have won that right to that  particular model, whether or not I
"like" your particular model or terms.

An example starting point might be to put forth a simple object model
that only encompases SI and non-empty base classes.  If you can first
get "everybody" to buy into that particular model, then you might have
a starting point to expand into what model[s] compilers are allowed
to implement in regards MI, vfuncs, vbases, abstract bases, etc.