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