Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (              Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Standards For C++
Message-ID: <6590067@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Sep 88 18:40:50 GMT
References: <255@itivax.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 60

I think the point I was trying to make is that C++
compiler vendors ARE providing compilers with various
"levels" of functionality.  I see this as likely to
continue as long as bs and "everyone else" continues
to work on the language trying to figure out exactly
what it should contain.

It is "nice" to fantasize that all of a sudden we're
going to have an emaculate conception and a finalized
version of C++ is going to pop out whole and flawless --
but I for one do not see this as happening.

The alternative is to try to agree upon standardized
"subsets" so at least the customer knows what their
buying.  This would actually put pressure on vendors
to provide compilers with the latest and greatest
"agreed upon" features since who wants to provide a
product with reduced functionality?

As it now stands anyone can pretty much call anything
they make a "C++ compiler" and then there are endless
discussions about whether a certain library is going
to compile under a given compiler.

I believe that some intermediate "subset" standards,
where the various compiler vendors get together and
agree on what they agree upon, and agree to disagree
on areas where the language is still developing, would
be preferable to waiting for the indefinite future
for the "whole language" to magically appear.

As a practical matter I believe that the "subset"
standards that can be agreed upon, and the levels
of complexity that various vendors' compilers are
likely to support break down as follows:

1) single inheritence.
2) multiple inheritence.
3) parameterized classes.
4) ???

Probably most compilers being offered are at about level #1,
with level #2 in the works.  Why not make a bow to reality
and the needs of customers to know what they are buying,
and "formalize" these admittedly intermediate levels of
conformance?  Isn't partial agreement to standards better for 
customers than no agreement at all?

Also:  EVERY compiler presently being bought by customers
implements a SUBSET of the C++ language.  And EVERY library
being offered by library writers is written using a SUBSET of
the C++ language.  Why rail against reality?  The reality
is everyone today IS using subsets of the C++ language.
Why not agree to standards on those subsets, so that at
least there are only N subsets, rather than N-factorial !!!!????

At my location the non-standardization among C++ vendors IS
forcing me to work with the level -2 subset of the C++ language
-- IE "C".  How about getting some standards set so I can at 
least work at the -1 or -0 subset level of the C++ language???