Re: Help with bit-field semantics in C and C++

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Toon Moene wrote:

> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> > When reading the C++ standard, it pays to remember that it's big, 
> > complex, and some parts are better written than others.  The people 
> > writing it just didn't think of all the corner cases, whichi is not 
> > to criticize; it's just a fact.
>
>
> This is also not meant as criticism, just a question on the process of 
> creating the C++ standard.
>
> During the creation of a Fortran Standard (the 2003 one is the one I'm 
> familiar with) unfailingly there are vendors who implement 2003 
> features into their Fortran 95 compilers, just to see whether "it 
> works".  Just as unfailingly, they'll unearth corner cases the 
> committee overlooked. If the corner case really is in the new 2003 
> proto-standard, it can be dealt with internally - however, 
> "interpretations" of the Fortran 95 Standard are not uncommon in this 
> process.
>
> How does that work for C++ ?

Similarly -- except that some parts (like "export", famously) were 
standardized well in advance of any implementation.  They just don't 
find all the corner cases.  And, sometimes, the developers think that 
the standard obviously means X, and then a subsequent set of developers 
thinks it obviously means !X, and so controversy arises. 

This thread is a good example: David C. thinks he's being dumb, and I 
think he's being too smart. :-)

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com