Article View: net.lang.c++
Article #200Re: Re: Unintuitive semantics for initializing in for statements
From: KW Heuer
Date: Mon, 19 May 1986 16:19
Date: Mon, 19 May 1986 16:19
20 lines
1493 bytes
1493 bytes
In article <652@baylor.UUCP> baylor!peter (Peter da Silva) writes: [bentley!kwh writes:] >>In C++, it's not so bad having statements which are not expressions, because >>you can just make a one-statement inline function and use "return". > >How about going back to BCPL and allow *any* block to have a value that is >returned by "return" (or use the BCPL keyword "resultis")? I think it's obvious why you couldn't use "return". As for the BCPL-style "valof ... resultis", I think the inline function is a simpler concept (and it looks cleaner besides). >I have a question about C++: what is "cout << value"? I presume that's >supposed to print the value in an appropriate format, but I can't figure >why "cout". Why not "print value..."? It isn't a builtin. "cout" and this interpretation of "<<" are defined in "stream.h". "cout" corresponds to "stdout"; you can have other streams. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<839@bentley.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!topaz!bentley!kwhReferences:
<652@baylor.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!topaz!bentley!kwh From: kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Re: Unintuitive semantics for initializing in for statements Message-ID: <839@bentley.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-May-86 12:19:08 EDT Article-I.D.: bentley.839 Posted: Mon May 19 12:19:08 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 20-May-86 07:52:43 EDT References: <652@baylor.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner Lines: 20