Richard Conn wrote:
> Just in case you missed it, this is the text of what Mike said:
> My Prentice-Hall Dictionary of Computing says (1998, p.627):
> Clearly defined and agreed-upon conventions for programming
> intefaces. Standards may be (bullets mine)
> - proprietary (used only within the environment provided by a single
> computer vendor),
> - public (widely used across a variety of vendor equipment), or
> - formal (developed by a standards organization such as ANSI or ISO)."
Given that a formal standard exists for C++ it would seem strange
to refer to a a proprietary implementation as Microsoft's standard
for C++ (Would you say Gnat is the ACT standard for Ada?).
If there are two "standards" then clearly there is no standard.