On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 05:32 +0000, acahalan at gmail dot com wrote: > > ------- Comment #9 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-10-01 05:32 ------- > (In reply to comment #4) > > This is definitely firmly in the class of "extension to the language that > > requires a thorough proposal to be presented to the standards committee" > > Of course. I mentioned that. > > I'm more familiar with the POSIX/UNIX standardization than the C/C++ > standardization. Perhaps they have very different rules, but what > I've seen with the one group is that the committee strongly prefers > that there be an existing implementation.
But after the proposal has been written formally. -- Pinski
