Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Standards For C++ Message-ID: <1988Sep22.172832.14486@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <255@itivax.UUCP> <6590064@hplsla.HP.COM> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 17:28:32 GMT In article <6590064@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) writes: >For example, a "level 1" implementation of a C++ compiler >might only support single inheritence, a "level 2" >implementation of a C++ compiler might mean that multiple >inheritence is supported, "level 3" implementations of >the language might support parameterized classes ...... I think this is a mistake; it means that we would have several different languages rather than one standard one. (It gets still worse if you have optional pieces that aren't part of a linear sequence; there are something like 4096 different languages that are technically "ANSI standard COBOL".) Note that X3J11 made a conscious decision *not* to define multiple levels of C, for exactly this reason. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu