🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Koenig (ark@research.att.com) wrote:
|> 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.

Actually, I don't think that that was the point.  What was requested was
that the C++ vendor be required to specify this fact, rather than
letting us find it out by trial and error.

Still, they could always specify that their C++ compiler was compatible
with the GABI Software C compiler version 1.0.  Of course, since I'm not
in the process of writing a compiler, it's hard to say when this C
compiler will be released.  So I'm not sure what good this information
will do you.
-- 
James Kanze           (+33) 88 14 49 00          email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle--
                             --Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung