🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: ~virtual (followup to ~const proposal 1.6)
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 23:27

Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 22:56

Re: type/member tags
By: David Cok on Tue, 12 Mar 1991 12:38

Re: type/member tags
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 08:00

Re: Encouraging readonly memory (was ~const)
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 03:12

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 03:20

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 03:01

Re: operator dot?
By: Ron Guilmette on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 02:55

Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 18:37

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 18:20

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Bob Peterson on Mon, 11 Mar 1991 14:03

parsing C++ woes
By: Steven Kearns on Sun, 10 Mar 1991 17:19

Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
By: DAVID HOYT on Sat, 09 Mar 1991 14:09

Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
By: Chip Salzenberg on Sat, 09 Mar 1991 02:07

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Sat, 09 Mar 1991 01:54

Re: Re: Dynamic type loss considered harmless
By: Dave Scidmore on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 07:39

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Joe Buck on Fri, 08 Mar 1991 19:41

default/variable/implicit arguments
By: Ari Juhani Huttunen on Fri, 08 Mar 1991 11:03

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Bob Peterson on Fri, 08 Mar 1991 14:27

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Jim ADCOCK on Wed, 06 Mar 1991 20:32

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Alternatives to ~const
By: Jim ADCOCK on Wed, 06 Mar 1991 20:26

Re: overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Craig Hubley on Fri, 08 Mar 1991 07:10

Re: Dynamic type loss considered harmless
By: Chip Salzenberg on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 16:06

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Desmond Dsouza on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 19:13

A possibly stupid proposal
By: Mark Purtill on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 17:38

Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
By: DAVID HOYT on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 16:15

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Patrick C Beard on Thu, 07 Mar 1991 07:47

Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
By: Chip Salzenberg on Wed, 06 Mar 1991 22:43

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Wed, 06 Mar 1991 22:16

Re: Re: Dynamic type loss considered harmless
By: Thomas Wang on Wed, 06 Mar 1991 02:13

Re: ~virtual (followup to ~const proposal 1.6)
By: Bjarne Stroustrup on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 13:43

Re: type/member tags
By: Chip Salzenberg on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 18:36

What is the current state of play?
By: house ron on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 13:57

Re: template base classes
By: Tom Horsley on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 16:00

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Bob Peterson on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 14:36

template base classes
By: Ari Juhani Huttunen on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 13:19

Re: overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Dave Jones on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 21:25

Dynamic Type checking and Exception Handling (was: Re: type/member tags)
By: Desmond Dsouza on Tue, 05 Mar 1991 04:19

Re: Encouraging readonly memory (was ~const)
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 22:57

Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 18:48

Re: Overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 18:56

Re: Dynamic type loss considered harmless
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 16:30

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 16:07

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 16:00

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Bill Triggs on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 18:53

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const
By: Joe Buck on Mon, 04 Mar 1991 05:06

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const
By: Ron Guilmette on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 21:21

Re: Encouraging readonly memory (was ~const)
By: Ron Guilmette on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 21:37

operator dot?
By: Jim ADCOCK on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 18:29

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Ron Guilmette on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 23:01

lifetime of unnamed arguments?
By: Jim ADCOCK on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 18:33

Re: Dynamic type loss considered harmless
By: Craig Hubley on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 00:55

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Craig Hubley on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 00:43

Re: Overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Craig Hubley on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 00:39

Re: operator delete modifying pointers?
By: Jim ADCOCK on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 22:04

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Craig Hubley on Sun, 03 Mar 1991 00:03

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Reid Ellis on Fri, 01 Mar 1991 15:08

Variable arguments (Was Re: type/member tags
By: Ari Juhani Huttunen on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 13:44

~virtual (followup to ~const proposal 1.6)
By: Tom Ngo on Sat, 02 Mar 1991 06:46

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Fri, 01 Mar 1991 16:10

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Alternatives to ~const
By: Reid Ellis on Fri, 01 Mar 1991 09:41

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Joe Buck on Fri, 01 Mar 1991 20:38

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 14:37

Re: Overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Chip Salzenberg on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 14:29

Re: Dynamic type loss considered harmless
By: Chip Salzenberg on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 14:29

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 18:53

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Paul Vaughan on Thu, 28 Feb 1991 16:38

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Bob Peterson on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 15:43

Re: Default copy constructor not making a copy
By: Mike Lijewski on Wed, 27 Feb 1991 14:13

sgetc bug
By: Jim ADCOCK on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 18:59

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Jim ADCOCK on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 18:26

small error?
By: Steven Kearns on Sun, 24 Feb 1991 19:08

typedefnames as classnames
By: Steven Kearns on Sun, 24 Feb 1991 18:33

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Desmond Dsouza on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 19:03

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Glenn P. Parker on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 19:10

Re: overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Desmond Dsouza on Sun, 24 Feb 1991 23:46

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Desmond Dsouza on Sun, 24 Feb 1991 23:34

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: William M Miller on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 01:58

Re: operator delete modifying pointers?
By: William M Miller on Tue, 26 Feb 1991 01:57

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 20:06

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 20:23

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Desmond Dsouza on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 22:10

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 20:56

operator delete modifying pointers?
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 22:05

Re: overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Craig Hubley on Mon, 25 Feb 1991 20:19

Re: Calling constructors for parms passed by value
By: Bob Martin on Fri, 15 Feb 1991 14:05

Thanks for the help...
By: Mark Harrison on Fri, 22 Feb 1991 23:10

local type names
By: Steven Kearns on Sat, 23 Feb 1991 04:42

SUMMARY: Responses to ~const pre-proposal, Rev 1.6
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:24

Responses to ~const 1.6: Experience?
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:45

Responses to ~const 1.6: Compiler complexity?
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:43

Responses to ~const 1.6: Name change
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:42

Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:40

Responses to ~const 1.6: Fate of cast-from-const
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:35

Responses to ~const 1.6: Alternatives to ~const
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:32

Responses to ~const 1.6: General reactions
By: Tom Ngo on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 16:28

Re: Encouraging readonly memory (was ~const)
By: Bruce Cohen;;50-662;LP=A; on Thu, 21 Feb 1991 21:23

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Craig Hubley on Thu, 21 Feb 1991 18:51

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Craig Hubley on Thu, 21 Feb 1991 18:45

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Chip Salzenberg on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 23:28

Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type)
By: Chip Salzenberg on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 20:17

Re: overloading vs. virtual functions
By: Chip Salzenberg on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 19:57

Encouraging readonly memory (was ~const)
By: Garry Wiegand on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 22:09

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Experience?
By: Joe Buck on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 02:15

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: David Cok on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 12:09

RE-POST: ~const pre-proposal, Rev 1.8
By: Tom Ngo on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 03:47

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const
By: Scott Schwartz on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 02:39

Re: Responses to ~const 1.6: Possible generalizations of ~const
By: Scott Schwartz on Wed, 20 Feb 1991 02:31

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Craig Hubley on Tue, 19 Feb 1991 06:57

Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++
By: Chip Salzenberg on Mon, 18 Feb 1991 14:27

Exception handling?
By: A. Michael Burbidge on Mon, 18 Feb 1991 19:28

No friendship for private constructors?
By: Perry The Cynic on Sat, 16 Feb 1991 07:13

Re: Should unary operators convert?
By: Bruce.Hoult on Tue, 29 Jan 1991 05:22

Re: named parameters
By: Garry Wiegand on Fri, 15 Feb 1991 20:41

reference operators and reference conversion
By: Jim ADCOCK on Wed, 13 Feb 1991 20:55

Re: Dynamic Binding by Argument Type
By: Jim ADCOCK on Wed, 13 Feb 1991 19:50

Proposal: template default arguments
By: Niklas Hallqvist on Mon, 11 Feb 1991 15:20

named parameters
By: Roland Schemers III on Tue, 12 Feb 1991 17:36

Re: Calling constructors for parms passed by value
By: Jim ADCOCK on Tue, 12 Feb 1991 01:26

C++ typing not so strong
By: David Cok on Wed, 13 Feb 1991 13:40

Re: request for comments
By: Jim ADCOCK on Mon, 04 Feb 1991 23:43

Re: Dynamic Binding by Argument Type
By: John Townsend on Wed, 06 Feb 1991 14:44

Re: Is this code using casts valid in C++ ?
By: Ron Guilmette on Fri, 08 Feb 1991 06:07

Re: Conversion to |void*| and back: A NO-BRAINER
By: Ron Guilmette on Fri, 08 Feb 1991 06:04

Re: Conversion to |void*| and back: LEGAL
By: Ron Guilmette on Wed, 23 Jan 1991 09:24

Re: request for comments
By: Dag Bruck on Wed, 23 Jan 1991 06:47

Re: Calling constructors for parms passed by value
By: Tilo Levante on Tue, 05 Feb 1991 07:36

The cost of incompatibilities
By: gregory.p.kochanski on Fri, 08 Feb 1991 13:32