🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Koenig (ark@research.att.com) wrote:
: In article <1995Aug3.110213.1412@ittpub> wil@ittpub.nl (Wil Evers) writes:
: 
: > > 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.
: 
: But your interest would be the same whether the Standard
: said anything about it or not.  That's the point.

I'd like the Standard to say something like "A C++ compiler must define 
which C compilers it supports extern "C" access to.  extern "C" access to 
is defined precisely as: ..."

A C++ compiler could indeed say `Our C++ implementation does not support
extern "C" access to any compilers'; it would
be a poor if conforming implementation, only useful for people who never
use extern "C".  It is still useful for the Standard to define how
extern "C" behaves, so that programs using it can be portable among
compilers which support it.

Mike