From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,53c7a24d13241b98 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Kenneth W. Sodemann" Subject: Re: Standadised OO Language Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: <6c3180$bbd$1@news3.alpha.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324940944 References: <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote in message ... > >I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe >December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was >laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted. I don't know if >this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO. > According to my reading of the "C/C++ Users Journal", it is an ANSI and ISO standard, and the final draft was accepted in early November of 1997. Barring any major problems, we now _finally_ have a C++ standard (insert big cheer here!). Of course, the lack of a standard hasn't been that big of a deal for me WRT C++, since for the C++ related work I have done, the only VALID standard has been "whatever MS does"! :) Of course for those using C++ on non-MS platforms, that is not true (most of my non-Windows work has been done in Ada, so the lack of a standard hasn't been an issue for me there either). -- Ken Sodemann stufflehead@bigfoot.com http://www.pcii.net/~stuffel Go 23, 24, 36, & ABE. Go Pack!!