"Zack Weinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis said: | > "Zack Weinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | Gabriel Dos Reis said: | > | > C++98 came before C99, so who diverged from whom? | > | | > | It doesn't matter. | > | > Yet, you're you were construeing it as an argument to support your position. | | I'm only bringing up the divergence as an argument that at least one of the | standards should be changed.
except that it was at best misleading. | | Now my position _is_ that C++ should change, and for rationale look no further | than Geoff's observation that implementing (A) or (B) rather than (C) | semantics | serves primarily to increase the set of programs that are ill-formed. Since I | don't think anyone but a conformance-test author would ever code something like | Joseph's example, I think our users are best served by sticking to (C) and making | the standards match. | | > | > If you do feel so strongly about this, why don't you invest time in | > | > sorting this with the committees? | > | | > | I am not in a position to do that. Others on this list are. | > | > Please be more explicit. | | Participating in the standards committees takes a great deal of time and | money (for travel), neither of which I have right now. I don't care to | discuss my precise circumstances. Good. It seems to me like those who would be spending a great deal of time and money are not sufficiently convinced by your arguments. Consequently, it appears that they are not in position to explain your strong opinion to the committees -- personally, I'm not convinced enough to take committee scare resource (e.g. time) to explain them that ZW strongly believes that the C++ spec has bug. If you do have people who would defend your position; please let us know. Otherwise, it would seem like you're agitating that argument for no useful purpose. -- Gaby
