AspectG++ ?

[Robert Dewar]

On 2/18/2011 8:05 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 2/18/2011 4:59 PM, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
>>> And non-standard extensions are generally not acceptable.
>> Well, I think as soon as people begin to use it, even gcc itself might become
>> more and more aspect orientated (at the c-parts).
>> It's one of the aspects of AOP that sourcecode will be stripped down enormous,
>> because generalization is much eaysier.
>> But anyway, seems as there is really no ISO standard yet for AOP.
>> Seems as there first have to be made some definitions, before I can hope
>> to use AOP features in my one-and-only compiler... :-(
>> Ok, well, in this case, let me ask a very naive question:
>> Who do I need to mail to, in order to motivate the definition of an ISO
>> standard for AOP in C/C++? ^.^"
>
> You can contact a commercial company that deals with gcc, and be
> prepared to pay the cost (which I am sure would be substantial).
> Or you can do it yourself.

Ah, sorry I missed the ISO. This is indeed a naive question.
Standardizing something like this is a huge effort. Assuming
the existence of an enthusiastic bunch of people from multiple
countries to work on this, you are talking about a design effort
that would take years, followed by a standardization effort that
would take years.

You can't just take along your home grown half-baked definition
of a language and expect to get an ISO stamp for it. Furthermore,
as someone else pointed out saying C/C++ means you are seriously
confused to start with. These are two separate languages with
two separate standardization bodies that don't always cooperate
with one another.
>>
>> best regards
>> 	David