🚀 go-pugleaf

Matt Austern wrote:
> 
> In article <4ks0c8$jte@piglet.cc.uic.edu> dhanle2@icarus.cc.uic.edu (David James Hanley) writes:
> 
> > : Correct about what?  That having a name-mangling standard for C++
> > : would make C++ libraries easier to handle.  Sorry, but he's wrong,
> > : and so are you.


> >       Nope. You're the one who is wrong here.  But seeing as you
> > replied to my first post about the matter with insults to me, I really
> > doubt you are interested in serious exploration of the matter.
> 
> I'd think twice before telling Andy flatly that he's wrong about some
> basic C++ issue.  There might be a few people who know more about the
> language than he does, but there sure aren't many.

Actually, this is a case of selectively narrwing down to a part of
something said and taking exeception to a clause in the sentence
instead of the whole thing. I distinctly remember saying for a 'whole
host of reasons, not the least of which is name-mangling.' There are
many other reasons.

Thank you so much for pointing them out. This only further justifies
my statment that there is a logical rational for why our staff has
retreated from C++ back to C for many things. That was the whole original
point: that C is easier to deal with than C++...

Joe Kraska.