Proposed IEEE Operators.

[Donn Terry]

(This concerns Rex's note on that topic.)

I understand the politics of this issue all too well.  The "no change"
attitude however has gotten a little bit extreme.  "Creeping featurism"
can be fatal to a standard, but the other extreme can end up with a
standard that doesn't meet bona-fide needs.

If you look at the output from the SC22 AG meeting, you'll find that
Recommendation 11 boils down to, among other things, that C++ should be
treated as the revision of C.  (There is a very clear "notwithstanding"
in the document.)

Maybe the right approach here is to fix the problem in C++ (call this
the NC++EG!).   Then application writers might be able to use the
non-object-oriented subset of C++ for numeric needs  (or at least have
a precedent for the syntax).  Given that I'm not experienced in C++,
the non-object-oriented version may not be practical, but it's possible
that it could be made that way.

Donn Terry