🚀 go-pugleaf

gyro@kestrel.edu (Scott Layson) writes:
> However, I don't agree that the automatic application of user-defined
> conversions is something that should be removed.  (Maybe this bodes
> ill for the job of the contractions group! :-)  My personal candidate
> for dyking out is pointers to members...

Exactly.  And Tom Cargill's is multiple inheritance.  (Mine?  It's all the
grotty C features like the declaration syntax and second-class arrays :-)
There'd be so much ox-goring I don't think we'd *ever* make any further
progress.  (Actually, Tom's got a long list of things, and I could easily do
without default arguments, too.)

>                                                 My personal candidate
> for dyking out is pointers to members, as it is easy to write static
> member functions that do exactly the same thing.

That's a really excellent point.  It's a pity that static member functions
weren't invented until quite a while after pointers to members; maybe we
could have avoided the awful things if the order had been reversed.

-- William M. Miller, Glockenspiel, Ltd.
   wmm@world.std.com