🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KANZE.96Mar29121910@gabi.gabi-soft.fr> kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze
) writes:

   From: kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze)
   Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
   Date: 29 Mar 1996 16:09:56 GMT

   First: it wasn't the committee's decision (except in so far as they
   didn't change the base document).  This was illegal in the ARM.

I shouldn't have suggested the committee invented it.

The example you cite from p. 86 of the "Design & Evolution of C++"
does show a case in which the programmer doesn't get what they wanted.
I guess I'm just complaining because I'm used to the old approach of
"If it might be useful but is usually a mistake, make it a warning,
not an error".  (For example, the ever popular "if (a = 5) ...").

The way the standard is written, I fear that this will become an
error, rather than a warning, in the near future.  My impression is
that most compiler writers use the interpretation "if the standard
says its illegal, make it an error."  I guess I'll go focus my
attention on the folks who are working on g++, in hope of ensuring
that at least g++ will continue to compile our code...

Dave W
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]