🚀 go-pugleaf

In <DCJAon.7tH@research.att.com>, Andrew Koenig (ark@research.att.com) wrote
: In article <DCFHJq.JC3@isgtec.com> pcurran@isgtec.com (Peter Curran) writes:

: > This is true, but one of the great strengths of C++ is supposed to be
: > it wonderful type definition facilities.  If it is necessary to build
: > as simple a type as this into the language, the whole thing begins to
: > look pretty silly.

: The alternative is to change built-in operators like < to yield a
: user-defined type, which is even more silly.
: -- 
: 				--Andrew Koenig
: 				  ark@research.att.com

So, we're agreed - no matter what you do with C++, it's silly :-)

(To clarify, on a more serious level - IMHO C++ was an interesting and
valuable experiment, but we've learned its lessons and it's time to
move on.  I don't think the apparently-infinite set of patches that
have been/are being done to it in an effort to "finish" it are ever
going result in an adequate language.)

--
Peter Curran                                        pcurran@isgtec.com
ISG Technologies, Inc                              (905) 672-2100 X315
6509 Airport Road,        http://www.isgtec.com     Fax (905) 672-2307
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada                   Usual disclaimers apply