>
>
>On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
>
>> I haven't been crazy with most of the changes in the new standard of C++
>> either, actually I oppose many of them, but just because they are there
>> doesn't mean I'll be forced to use them either.
>
>Sorry, but it means that standard C++ is fundamentally broken. *If* one
>has to avoid some features at any cost it means that you are advocating
>usage of language different from C++. It may be a subset of C++, but it is
>*not* C++ per se. Feel free to hack up a compiler for that language and
>we'll have something to discuss. Personally I think that exceptions are
>broken by design and templates are bad parody on real functional
>languages. If you happen to have a free compiler of Clean or Miranda (free
>to hack it) I'll be glad to play with *that*. But that means writing from
>scratch (with pieces on C for additional primitive combinators; they may
>be taken from existing kernel).
>
Oh, so if I do not use any #defines or pointers in my C-"like" program then
it isn't really C, its a subset. By the way there is a subsetted version of
C++ out there, its Embedded C++ which removes the more costly features of
the language.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/