Re: From C++ to Shining C

Article View: comp.std.c++

Article #1495

#1495

From: halasz
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 18:50

9 lines
920 bytes

In article <3vq3b6$2l5@gabi.gabi-soft.fr>, kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze) writes
& ....
& But I do not decide the standards committee's orientation in this
& regard.  All I can say is that by accepting ++ for bool, the C++
& standard is following in the footsteps of C....

If we are stuck with 'bool' in C (not C++), then I want "bool++" and
"bool--" even though, as it has been pointed out, when the code is open
to "setjmp" or other interrupting it is unsafe.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <3vtq4u$iro@caip.rutgers.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!caip.rutgers.edu!not-for-mail

References: <3t9lge$ngf@citadel.evolving.com> <3tgl2f$569@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk> <3vq3b6$2l5@gabi.gabi-soft.fr>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!caip.rutgers.edu!not-for-mail
From: halasz@caip.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: From C++ to Shining C
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Date: 4 Aug 1995 14:50:06 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vtq4u$iro@caip.rutgers.edu>
References: <3t9lge$ngf@citadel.evolving.com> <3tgl2f$569@offas_dike.sbil.co.uk> <3vq3b6$2l5@gabi.gabi-soft.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: caip.rutgers.edu

Reply to Parent Message