🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vlhsd$s3i@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:

> >I can't understand why the committee is having such a hard time over this  
> >issue. Why not just require a C++ implementation to specify with which C  
> >compiler(s) (and versions) it is compatible on a given platform?
> 
> Let's suppose the committee makes exactly that requirement. Your C++
> compiler manual says "This C++ compiler is compatible with the XYZ C
> compiler, version 2.0.2," thus complying with the requirement. Are you now
> better off than you were before?

To expand on Steve's points: what happens if XYZ corporation stops
selling version 2.0.2 of its compiler?  Does that mean that your C++
compiler is no longer standard-conforming?  Or what happens if you
want to write a C++ compiler for a platform for which there isn't any
C compiler?  (That's not as artificial a what-if as you might think:
don't forget embedded systems.)

C and C++ are different languages.  I just don't see that cross-language
compatibility are within the scope of the C++ standard.

-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."