Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!think!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!pegasus!hansen
From: hansen@pegasus.ATT.COM (Tony L. Hansen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ syntactic ambiguity (long/tedious)
Summary: it's no longer true
Keywords: C++, evolution
Message-ID: <4244@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Nov 89 01:12:55 GMT
References: <405@lpi.UUCP>
Reply-To: hansen@pegasus.ATT.COM (Tony L. Hansen)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA
Lines: 26

< AT&T C++ (2.0) seems to choose #2.  This choice seems to be based on a a
< new and incompatible (with old C and ANSI C) prohibition of redundant
< parentheses around declarators; the simple declaration "int (x);" (inside
< a function definition) has been rendered illegal.  In "The C++ Answer
< Book" by Tony Hansen (on page 522 in appendix A), there is a statement
< that superfluous parentheses in declarations, while legal in ANSI C, are
< *not* permitted in C++.  But in "C++: From Research to Practice" by S.B.
< Lippman and B.E. Moo (in the 1988 USENIX C++ Conference Proceedings) there
< is an indication that C++ *does* allow extraneous parentheses in
< declarations. In addition, in "The Evolution of C++: 1985 to 1987" by
< Bjarne Stroustrup, there is an assertion that redundant parentheses are
< *illegal* in declarations, but in the follow up "The Evolution of C++:
< 1985 to 1989", that assertion seems to have been removed.

When I wrote that paragraph, the restriction was very definitely present.
Unfortunately, I didn't catch the fact that the restriction had later been
removed while I was reviewing the 2.0 reference manual. That's right, the
restriction is no longer present.

Isn't language evolution wonderful? :-)

The other statements within that section in Appendix A are correct.

					Tony Hansen
				att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony
				    hansen@pegasus.att.com