Re: C++'s 'export' Keyword?

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > I guess it depends on whether you think "highly inaccuarate"[1] material
| > is a "good, free, introduction".
| >
| > [1] Those are words used to describe that paper
| 
| Used by _you_?

No.  Those are words used by committee members after the technical
session (and one of the three EGD guys cited in the papers).

| Why don't you explain a bit why exactly you believe those
| papers are so bad?

You're essentially asking me to rehash the highly "involved"
discussions we had the both technical and non-technical sessions
during the committee meeting.

| Otherwise, why Olivier (or me) should buy a whole book,
| or the highly technical C++ Standard or bother Adamczyk himself only to
| learn something about "Export"?

Because "Export" is technical.

Olivier asked for a "[good] documentation" about export. And this were
about implementation of "export".  For something like that, it
strikes as obvious that an inaccurate description is the worst that could
be advised.  Also, Steve Adamczyk's offer is free of charge if buying
the book or the Standard for a technical purpose is too high.

| "Export" is not mine or Olivier profession and we don't plan to
| devote a couple of years to implement it, as happened at EDG.

I fully recognize that it not your profession not Olivier's  (and that
is partly why he asked the question).  And I also guessed that it is
not your profession or else you would not have pointed out that
document when someone asked for a "good documentation. 

| Personally, I learned from the paper and, personally, I believe that the
| standards of quality of the WG papers are pretty high, personally I'd
| appreciate if you could devote more time to _construct_ instead of
| _dismiss_: in this particular case the latter activity would be called
| _popularizing_.

And I gave you a reference, technically well written and that explain
those things from a technical point of view.  You said you see no
point in buying it.  You're kidding when you're talking about
"dismiss"; aren't you? 

-- Gaby