Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.
That explanation is far more gratifying that the misunderstandin g I had.
PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ
Something else came to mind regarding this topic. Since TC++PL(SE) was
intended to have a companion book (according to the author, that is),
perhaps recommending an alternative would be a sufficient means of
addressing the same need.
For myself, what I have found lacking is a comprehensive and clear
exposition of the core language features in the form of a reference. For
example, I would like to be able to look up a keyword in an index, and be
directed to a section defining the keyword, and showing an example of all
forms of its usage. To have such a thing in electronic form would be even
more helpful.
As for an ARM++, that seems to be something more useful to the veteran C++
programmer. There are many design choices represented in ISO/IEC
14882:2003(E), but, due to the nature of the document, there is little
communication of the motivation for the decisions. Much of this may be
covered in D&E, which I haven't found time to read yet.
Then there seem to be a few things in the 14882:2003(E) which not everybody
should know. Not that they are bad. It's just that things like that are
potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.
--
STH
Hatton's Law: "There is only One inviolable Law"
KDevelop:
http://www.kdevelop.org SuSE:
http://www.suse.com
Mozilla:
http://www.mozilla.org 
