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???