🚀 go-pugleaf

<Dick.Menninger@daytonoh.attgis.com> writes:

 > The focus of the standards process and content
 > is so strictly focused on the definition of the language
 > from the narrow view of conformance by compilers
 > that the users' view of QOI does not get documented
 > by it, much less enforced.

It is not my impression that the C++ standards process
is unduly focussed on "the definition of the language
from the narrow view of conformance by compilers."
What is constrained that way it the expression of the
rules for the language.

I would have preferred to produce a more accessible
document, but that is unfortunately not part of the
charter of an ANSI/ISO committee. Explaining the
reasons and the meaning of rules is up to educators
and popularizers of all sorts.

 > This may be inevitable
 > (though I am not completely convinced that this
 > is inherent), but the users' view needs a forum that
 > has some weight behind it as far as compiler writers
 > are concerned.  If the standards process is to be
 > so narrowly cast, then it is inadequate unless
 > accompanied by a complementary representation
 > of the user that has weight.

The standards process is not "so narrowly cast." The members
of the committee comes from a wide variety of backgrounds,
and represent a wide variety of interests and organizations.
Most are current C++ users, many represent large groups of
C++ users. 

Most discussions consider use of a feature first, language-technical
issues second, and formulation third. Most issues pass through this
loop several times.

There are several sources to the reasoning and decisions of the
committee. For example:

	The C++ Report has articles on the standards effort and
	the use of newer features in most issues. For example,
	the October 1995 issue is primarily devoted to the
	implications of the near-completion of the standard.
	Several other journals carry similar material regularly.

	Stroustrup: "The Design and Evolution of C++" (Addison-Wesley)
	describes the reasoning behind most of the features of C++
	(and a few that were rejected). It also discusses the standards
	process and the aims and composition of the committee.
	
Please note that no summary can do full justice to a massive effort.
Typically, a single page is devoted to an issue that has been discussed
for hours by at least a dozen people on several separate occations.

		- Bjarne

 > Good Day
 > Dick
 > Dick.Menninger@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM




[ 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. ]