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
