Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!rpi!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Another GS/OS Quirk
Message-ID: <13912@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 19 Sep 90 18:16:51 GMT
References: <8678@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <1990Sep17.234307.7286@cbnewsd.att.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <1990Sep17.234307.7286@cbnewsd.att.com> bird@cbnewsd.att.com (j.l.walters) writes:
>From article <8678@ucrmath.ucr.edu>, by rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde):
>> Have you *LOOKED* at the code C++ puts out?  I'd hate to
>I wasn't aware that there was a version of C++ available for the
>IIgs or is this an oblique/funny reference that I fail to see?

Please don't respond to discussion threads that you haven't been following;
it merely adds to the confusion.

The thread started with an inquiry about availability of OOPS for the IIGS,
which of course there aren't, at least not in the form that they are usually
hyped.  I remarked that standard C was actually already capable of supporting
OOP, if one exercised the required discipline and came up with a small amount
of support code.  (In fact I plan to do this some day in the near future.)
The note from rhyde that you cited was apparently intended as a comment on
what OOP in standard C would look like, by comparing it to the C code produced
by cfront.  In a subsequent follow-up I noted that that was not what I had
actually proposed as the OOP implementation method.