🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 16 Nov 90 20:19:51 GMT, jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) said:

Jim> In my opinion C++ is not C, and the needs of object oriented programmers
Jim> are sufficiently different than the needs of C programmers that fine
Jim> grained details of ANSI-C ought to be considered again, rather than
Jim> accepted unthinkingly as "THE" answer.  Let's try to clean things up a 
Jim> little bit around the edges.

I think I'd agree with this, but let's make it a question instead.  Is there
anyone out there doing something with C++ where they need absolute ANSI-C
compatibility at compile time?  What are the benefits of taking this draconian
an approach to a language that's still growing?  To me, the ability to link
ANSI-C functions with C++ code is more than sufficient and, in some cases,
helps improve the code by separating programming styles.  Its nice for
programmer learning curve for there to be a significant overlap in ANSI-C and
C++, but there is already divergence, so why not attempt to improve things?
--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311					640 Clyde Ct.
uunet!cimshop!davidm				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
"If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"