Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!ernie.viewlogic.com!hari!peter
From: peter@hari.VIEWlogic.com (Peter Colby)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: C++ vs "C+-": any big diff?
Message-ID: <1990Aug23.180608.9038@viewlogic.com>
Date: 23 Aug 90 18:06:08 GMT
References: <1990Aug13.204321.7200@midway.uchicago.edu> <435@three.mv.com>
Sender: news@viewlogic.com (News Administrator)
Reply-To: peter@hari.VIEWlogic.com (Peter Colby)
Organization: VIEWlogic Systems, Inc.
Lines: 24


In article <435@three.mv.com>, cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:
|> 
|> From what the folks at Think said at MacWorld, Think C will never be C++.
|> If they did a C++ (my bet is they will), it will be a seperate product.
|> 

        Actually, as I recall from a conversation with Rich Siegal (I hope
that's spelt right) at MacWorld:

        1) Think may or may not be working on a C++
        2) If they were working on a C++ it might or might not be released
           as part of some possibly future version of Think C.

        In other words, noone was admitting to nothing. However, I did get
the impression that a separate C++ product might be desireable from a
technical/development viewpoint but that marketing (Symantec I assume) might
have other ideas.

        Hey, it was early in the morning; I could be wrong.

      (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)     (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
      (O) !the doctor is out! (O)     (0) peter@viewlogic.com (0)
      (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)     (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)