🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MCGRATH.90Aug1225852@paris.Berkeley.EDU> mcgrath@paris.Berkeley.EDU (Roland McGrath) writes:
>... However, we are talking about the standard for C++.  As this standard
>remains to be defined, and is independent from the existing standard for C,
>I don't see the relavence of your statement.

It is currently a defined property of C++ (see E&S) that any program which
is both legal C and legal C++ means the same in both (with a couple of tiny
and hard-to-avoid exceptions).  Many people think that this limited upward
compatibility is a good idea and should not be sacrificed.  The name of
the language is "C++", not "D".

On a related point, people should bear in mind that the best language
standards are the ones that codify *existing practice*, as opposed to
throwing in every wild and wonderful feature that somebody thought was
a good idea.  X3J11 did, by and large, a very good job on this for C.
(If you want to see what happens when standards committees start trying
to invent the language, look at ANSI BASIC or FORTRAN 9x.)  If the C++
standards effort does its job properly, ranting on the net about the
vital need for your favorite feature will be entirely futile.  What
you need is an implementation of it and some favorable experience using
that implementation, followed by a formal proposal to the committee (no,
posting it to the net does not qualify).
-- 
The 486 is to a modern CPU as a Jules  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Verne reprint is to a modern SF novel. |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry