🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3172DC7C.6B3F@sdt.com> Larry Baker <leb@sdt.com> writes:
>Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote:
>> > why aren't you agitating for a name-mangling standard in C?
>> > Name mangling is a potential problem there too.
>
>To which Peter van der Linden replied:
>> Name-mangling in C++ was a grotesque hack (like having the compiler
>> implemented as a C-preprocessor).  It provided a compiler 4 months sooner,
>> and set the language back five years.
>
>If you're going to flame implementations that hacked their way
>through pernicious problems, you might well point out the problem
>they hacked their way through: the linkers under UNIX (and most
>everywhere else) were (and are) too feeble to handle typesafe
>linkage.
>
>I'd tend to say that the C++ language designers did us all a favor
>by going ahead with language features that stressed the environment,
>rather than one that subjugated its goals to the limitations of
>the (external) tools at hand.
>
>Rather than grotesque, I'd tend to describe the CFRONT name-
>mangling 'hack' as an elegant, though complex, solution to a
>difficult problem.
>
>> Let's try and face up to the deficiencies of C++.
>
>In this case, don't you mean CFRONT's use of UNIX (et al) linkers?
>
>How would you have maintained C-style linkage and C++ typesafe
>linkage in the same object module without changing the linker?

Folks, this thread seems to be moving distinctly away from 
smalltalk -- please keep the followups out of comp.lang.smalltalk.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Nedzel  					jnedzel@netcom.com
MRC Partners

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------