Re: Is the STL too authentic... ?

Article View: de.comp.lang.c++

Article #111

#111

From: Andrew Koenig
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:48

16 lines
1127 bytes

In article <45efb3$u7@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov writes:

> That's a good reason.  Did the people who put forth the request for proposals
> mention "ability to perform safety checks if desired" as an area that was
> suitable to address?

The committee doesn't operate in terms of `requests for proposals'
in the sense I think you mean.  But in general, safety is not very
high on the lists of concerns of the committee members.  Performance
and conceptual compatibility with C are much higher, for example.

After all, if you want semantically safe languages that are fundamentally
different from C, you don't have to look very far.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com

Technical Details

Message-ID: <DG98oI.4pz@research.att.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!ark

References: <45bv4n$a2e@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> <DG7HsE.CMx@research.att.com> <45efb3$u7@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: de.comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c++
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: Is the STL too authentic... ?
Message-ID: <DG98oI.4pz@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
References: <45bv4n$a2e@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> <DG7HsE.CMx@research.att.com> <45efb3$u7@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:48:18 GMT

Reply to Parent Message