Jean:
Be certain you understand what this implies. Genericity is a complicated
feature, much larger than IF ... THEN .. ELSE ... ENDIF or POINTERs. If it
is added to the language after the draft is officially submitted to the
public the delay in the standard will be large. First the detailed form of
genericity will have to be debated within the committees. Second, large
sections not directly related to genericity will have to be rewritten.
Third a new draft will have to be sent out to the public for comment. This
implies at least a two year delay in publication of the standard. The
committee would be better off simply noting that the size of the request
makes it inappropriate for inclusion in the standard at this time and
putting it on the list of priorities for the next draft of the standard.
The committee has to respond to comments on the drfts, but being responsive
does not mean acquiescence.
If this capability is to be in the next standard it is better off being in
the first draft. If it is in the first draft it will probably have to use
my proposal as a starting point, otherwise there will be large delays in
developing the feature. The one person who liked my proposal is a bright
intelligent knowledgeable user, but like myself does not have detailed
experience in language design, standardization, or implementation. At
present I have no idea whether my proposal is a reasonable starting point.
I would not mind others lobbying for inclusion of this capability in the
first draft, but such lobbyists should at least read my proposal to
understand what they are likely to get if their lobbying succeeds. It is
available at X3J3's ftp site as 118-97.
William B. Clodius Phone: (505) 665-9370
Los Alamos Natl. Lab., NIS-2 FAX: (505) 667-3815
PO Box 1663, MS-C323 Group Off.: 505/667-3422 or 667-5127
Los Alamos, NM 87545 email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|