Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From: design AT netcom DOT com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: protected and public  base classes
Message-ID: <designDxx4tM.5EG@netcom.com>
Organization: Design and Delivery
References: <51frft$9qk AT miracle DOT cybernex DOT net> <designDxroL9 DOT sx AT netcom DOT com> <323CE3DE DOT 3CA7112B AT alcyone DOT com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 07:58:34 GMT
Lines: 21
Sender: design AT netcom21 DOT netcom DOT com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <323CE3DE DOT 3CA7112B AT alcyone DOT com>,
Erik Max Francis  <max AT alcyone DOT com> wrote:
>Chris Waters wrote:

>> Since there is, as yet, no ansi standard for C++, the question about
>> djgpp's conformance is meaningless.  Unless you're asking about
>> conformance with the C standard.  :)

>Nonsense.  There are very explicit draft standards that are currently under
>review for an official ANSI standard.

Translation:  there exists a document which _may_ be ratified as a
standard at some point in the future.  That document is _not_ available
to the public (although an older version (April '96) is) so questions
about conformance are moot.  Neither the current working draft nor the
April draft is a standard.  Ask P.J. Plauger about the difference
between a draft and a standard.  :)

To reiterate: there is, as yet, no ansi standard for C++.

See comp.std.c++ for more info.  Followups to /dev/null.