🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DIxDJD.IqM@falcon.daytonoh.attgis.com>
           Dick.Menninger@daytonoh.attgis.com "Dick Menninger" writes:
 
 > I have a stronger hope that a committee will form
 > that includes compiler vendor representation for the
 > purpose of establishing a forum for making up front
 > de facto standard additions.  Having them agree
 > (rather than war over things that should ultimately
 > end up in the next revision of the real stanard upteen
 > years from now) would benefit all.

How many committees do you want?! I think you've misunderstood the purpose
and terminology of standards: if you get a bunch of people together
to formally create any 'standard' then by definition it becomes 'de jure'
rather than 'de facto'.

My suggested solution: get some compiler vendors together, but don't forget
some of the users and library vendors (no formalisation w/o representation),
make sure that it is an international effort, and... Voila!

Does this sound familiar? We have what you want, you just don't like it.
_______________________________________________________________________

  Kevlin A P Henney        2sdg Ltd        kevlin@two-sdg.demon.co.uk
  "What happens to the hole when the cheese is gone?"  Bertolt Brecht
_______________________________________________________________________

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]