From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26209 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 14:08:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26202 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 14:08:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO suneidesis.com) (213.208.87.130) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 14:08:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (trevor@localhost) by suneidesis.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17061 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:08:21 GMT Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:17:00 -0000 From: Trevor Jenkins X-X-Sender: trevor@suneidesis To: Gnu Compiler Collection Hackers Subject: Re: [GCC] Re: c++ "with" keyword In-Reply-To: <15896.5319.39142.29263@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> Message-ID: X-Archive: expiry=0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Andrew Haley wrote: > Robert Dewar writes: > > > See Algol 68 for what happens if you do it the other way... > > > > I am willing to bet that this comment is made with *ZERO* knowledge > > about Algol-68. > > Believe that if you wish. I'm not a betting man. The Algol 68 > language had no implementations when it was standardized -- AFAIK the > first delivery was 1977! Several errors of fact there: First, the first published date on my copy of the Algol 68-R users Guide says 1972. Royal Signals and Radar Establishment had versions running before that. Second, neither the original report Algol 68 nor the revised report Algol 68 were "standardized". They were and are still maintained by IFIP WG 2.1. Never been near an International Standards Committee. But by extension your suggestion that a lanaguge only succeeds because of wide-spread implementations is clearly wrong. SGML had very few implementations in the period up to its publication in 1986. Goldfarb's ARC maybe and that didn't implement the entire standard. Even now CONCUR isn't there within Clark's SP. And if Algol-69 was such a beast why was it one of the candidate languages for what we now know as Ada? I suspect that the real reason Algol-68 did not catch on was that it was primarily European in origin. Regards, Trevor British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living language. Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now! Details at http://www.fdp.org.uk/ -- <>< Re: deemed!