Re: Linkage revisited

Article View: comp.std.c++

Article #1560

#1560

From: Wil Evers
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 11:02

20 lines
1029 bytes

In article <DCn5qw.94G@research.att.com> ark@research.att.com (Andrew  
Koenig)  writes:
> In article <1995Aug1.105954.1403@ittpub> wil@ittpub.nl (Wil Evers)  
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?
> 
> Such a requirement is uninteresting, because
> a vendor can simply say `Our C++ implementation is not
> compatible with any C compilers' and meet the requirement
> that way.

Why would such a statement be uninteresting? If I was looking for a decent  
C++ compiler, I'd be more than interested.

- Wil

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1995Aug3.110213.1412@ittpub>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!EU.net!sun4nl!ittpub!ittpub!nntp

References: <DCn5qw.94G@research.att.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!EU.net!sun4nl!ittpub!ittpub!nntp
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Linkage revisited
Message-ID: <1995Aug3.110213.1412@ittpub>
From: wil@ittpub.nl (Wil Evers)
Date: 3 Aug 95 11:02:13 WET
References: <DCn5qw.94G@research.att.com>
Distribution: world
Nntp-Posting-Host: beelzebub

Reply to Parent Message