Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: MPW C++ vs. THINK C 4.0
Message-ID: <3947@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 90 13:59:18 GMT
References: <1990Aug15.165548.25740@midway.uchicago.edu> <2054@key.COM>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec Language Products Group
Lines: 32

In article <2054@key.COM> perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) writes:
>
>The people at Symantec have decided that they want to make their own object-
>oriented C. That's fine by me. Just don't think that their product is anywhere

The object-oriented extensions in THINK C 4.0 are based
on a specification which came from Apple; this spec defines a langauge
called "C+-" or "Minimal C++"; "Object C" is also an apt name, because
the extensions in the language are analogous to the extensions in
Object Pascal over standard [sic] MPW Pascal. The extensions themselves
are largely syntax-compatible with C++.

>Non-heap class objects (at all), C++-style creators and destructors(!!),

	In fact, THINK C 4.0 does support the definition and instantiation
of 'direct' classes, in which the programmer is completely responsible for
allocation and deallocation of instances of such a class. This means that
an instance of a direct class can reside in the heap, on the stack, in
global space, or wherever the programmer wishes to place it.

R.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Rich Siegel
 Staff Software Developer
 Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group
 Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
 UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel

"Who could sleep when there's a hunk with no clothes on wandering around
at five in the morning, knocking over furniture?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~