🚀 go-pugleaf

In article H7z@infosoft.com, jgalt@infosoft.com (John Galt) writes:
>In article <1198@dawes.win.net>, Beman Dawes <beman@dawes.win.net> wrote:

>>  2.9  Keywords                                                [lex.key]

>[snip]

>>                   Table 4--alternative representations
>
>>            +------------------------------------------------+
>>            |and      and_eq   bitand   bitor   compl    not |
>>            |not_eq   or       or_eq    xor     xor_eq       |
>>            +------------------------------------------------+

>This leads to another question:

>Assuming that the problem characters (those that don't exist on some
>keyboards, making the above names necessary) are &, |, !, ^, and ~, I
>wonder why they didn't create names for all the affected characters. 
>I would have done something like this: ...

As I said in an earlier article, the C++ Committee didn't invent the
alternative representations, and didn't even particularly like some
of them. They were previously adopted as part of another ISO standard.
It seemed much better to comply with an existing standard than to
create an incompatibility.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]