Re: Standards Committees (was: function as a pointer).

"scott moore" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:quydnWhO1bbaHAfYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The root of the problem is that it was left to the standards committee
> to DESIGN the extension to the language. I would assert that is
> something no committee should do. The Algol 68 standard that Wirth
> created Pascal in protest of was designed by committee. Certainly
> Algol 68 might have been an im****tant language, but it was
> "kitchen sink" standard that was overcomplex and forgotten.
>
> The best language standards were those with few (or one) designers,
> and plenty of existing implementations with high efficiency, that
> subsequently went into the standards process for clarification.
>

I agree 100%. Anybody considering doing otherwise in the future could 
benefit from reading a description of  the experience of the Modula-2 
Standardization Committee:

http://scifac.ru.ac.za/cspt/sc22wg13.htm

warning - it is somewhat painful ;-)

--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/gpcp