From: francis.glassborow@btinternet.com   
      
   On 04/07/2012 05:35, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:   
      
   > If Microsoft makes the mistake of omitting the /CLI or /CX qualifier   
   > when presenting C++/CLI or C++/CX code, that would be one thing, but   
   > the evidence on the Internet indicates, at least to me, that there is   
   > a a deliberate campaign of misrepresentation. This would be the   
   > logical next step, since ISO rejected their standardization effort,   
   > saying that they should at least give the language a new name first.   
   >   
   > -Le Chaud Lapin-   
   >   
      
   OK I think we are all reaching a level of agreement.  When I proposed   
   delegating ctors for C++0x the Microsoft lead representative raised a   
   number of serious issues concerning such things as what exactly should   
   happen when a delegated ctor threw an exception. At what point was the   
   object complete requiring full destruction etc. The issues were quite   
   complex and after a space of 9 years I cannot summarise it. However the   
   most important issue was that what we wished to do (and eventually did)   
   conflicted with what Microsoft needed to do to support C++/CLI. That was   
   a direct example of why WG21 opposed fast tracking ECMA's C++/CLI   
   standard. We found it unacceptable that a secondary standard should   
   prevent us from doing what we believed to be in C++ programmers' best   
   interest.   
      
   It is in that context that C++/CLI (and possibly C++/CX) is a separate   
   language. It causes future compatibility issues. Whilst C++ is not a   
   trademark (wish that it were like Java in that respect) the use of C++   
   in the name C++/CLI was obviously going to cause confusion and exactly   
   because it was compatible with C++98 that, in BSI's (UK NB) view made it   
   unacceptable as an ISO Standard (there is an ISO rule prohibiting   
   multiple standards for the same language). If it was the same language   
   (but with extensions) then it was the responsibility of WG21 not ECMA to   
   produce and maintain a secondary standard covering the extensions and   
   that we had neither the time nor the motivation to do. If it was a   
   different language then its name was too similar and needed change.   
      
   Please note that Microsoft withdrew its application for fast-tracking   
   the ECMA Standard once it had been persuaded that the above was   
   essentially the case.   
      
   Yes, the world and Microsoft have moved on over the last 9 years and we   
   need to remain vigilant, especially that MS language implementers remain   
   conscious of the issues. That is best done by supporting the good and   
   persuading them that it is in their interests to avoid the bad and   
   problematic.   
      
   I have now largely retired from the arena (well I did celebrate my 70th   
   birthday last month so perhaps I am due a break) and no longer track   
   every new development. I hope that MS continues to produce compilers   
   that support pure C++. I note that it quickly responded to the concerns   
   raised wrt the proposed express version of VS 2012. It is that   
   responsiveness that we should welcome and encourage.   
      
   The express versions of its IDE need to provide a good student   
   environment and help those who want to use similar tools at home to   
   those they use at work. Though the latter might be better supported by   
   some form of extended license based on their employers. It would be nice   
   to have a Home/Student edition of VS to go alongside the Home/Student   
   editions of MSOffice.   
      
   Francis   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)