Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!chaffee
From: chaffee@reed.UUCP (Alex Chaffee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Yet more THINK C suggestions
Message-ID: <15577@reed.UUCP>
Date: 15 Oct 90 21:27:10 GMT
References: <21107@well.sf.ca.us> <16707@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Reply-To: chaffee@reed.UUCP (Alex Chaffee)
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 44

>In article <21107@well.sf.ca.us> gurgle@well.sf.ca.us (Pete Gontier) writes:
>
>>o Project nesting. We wish we could have multiple projects open. Double-
>>  clicking on a project item in a project window should open that project.

Add another tally mark to that one...

In article <16707@thorin.cs.unc.edu> morse@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Bryan
Morse) writes:

> I personally would like to see the "better C" parts of C++ implemented
> in Think C as well as imitating the OOP portion of C++.  This isn't flaming
> the above comment, just asking (begging?) Symantec to add some of the non-OOP
> parts of C++:
>   - default parameters
>   - for (int i = 0; ... )
>   - overloading: (very do-able)
>        int a;
>        float b;
>        print(a);
>        print(b);

  - how about true inline functions?  Come on; you've got an assembler and a
  compiler right there; why make us hand-assemble our inline functions into
  machine code?  (cf. p.125)  Something like

inline pascal void PrOpenPage() {
	asm { 
		move.l #0x10000808, -(SP)
		_PrGlue
	}
}

(to follow the example in the manual).  Of course, I don't know C++; they
probably have a better syntax for doing this.

 - Alex


-- 
Alex Chaffee
chaffee@reed.{UUCP,BITNET}
Reed College, Portland OR 97202
____________________