🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1028@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>Jim,
>
>It appears that you are going to be making a lot of proposals.  That's fine,
>but if you want them taken seriously, you should try to come up with
>some very specific wording that could be incorporated directly into the
>ANSI draft document.  Also, you should try to specify what section of E&S
>we are talking about for this proposal and you should say where and how
>your new proposed text should be fitted together with the existing wording
>in that section.

I'm not sure I buy this.  I'd like to have comp.std.c++ be the forum
for "public input" on the c++ standard.  This is the spirit in which
I am writing to comp.std.c++

Hopefully, at least on some issues, public input will reach some kind
of general consensus on how some of the loose ends in C++ should be
resolved.

But, eventually what's going to happen is a representatives from various
compiler vendors, etc, are going to have to sit down in a room, hammer out
the exact details, and fix the wording in the C++ documentation.  That
is the place where things are going to have to get really formal, not 
in public discussion.  However, the wording can't get fixed until
the intent is nailed down.

In any case, I hope to be able to restrain myself from making lots of
proposals.  I'm mainly trying to point out little loose ends that need 
to be cleaned up -- not major overhauls.