Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!mce
From: mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Think C 4.0
Message-ID: <10710@fluke.COM>
Date: 28 Aug 89 20:59:40 GMT
References: <227700036@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Organization: Guild of the Software Defenestrators
Lines: 24

In article <227700036@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>Are there different standards for C++?  It seems Stroustrup and Waite group
>have different ideas, and Symantic seems to be running something quite 
>different than either of those.  Is it my imagination, or are there at least
>three standards?

There is only one C++, the one defined by Stroustrup.  THINK C is not C++ at
all, and Symantec's claims to the contrary only hurt the product by confusing
the issue.  THINK C is ANSI C with object-oriented structures (similar to C++
structures, but far different from C++ classes).

>The Waite Group's does not mention the inherited: and mention this only in
>passing.

I'm not sure what the "Waite Group" is or what they are describing, but there
is no "inherited" keyword in C++ (it is a TC-ism).  One of my (many)
complaints about C++ is that you have to explictly name the super class in
order to invoke it's methods.  The syntax is "superclassname::method()".

The best book I have seen on C++ is "C++ PRIMER" by Stanley Lippman.
 
 
Brian McElhinney
mce@tc.fluke.com