Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: character array initialization Message-ID: Date: 18 Nov 90 01:56:12 GMT References: <58962@microsoft.UUCP> <513@taumet.com> <59110@microsoft.UUCP> <59138@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California. Lines: 23 In-reply-to: jimad@microsoft.UUCP's message of 16 Nov 90 20:19:51 GMT X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.12 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ] >>>>> On 16 Nov 90 20:19:51 GMT, jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) said: Jim> In my opinion C++ is not C, and the needs of object oriented programmers Jim> are sufficiently different than the needs of C programmers that fine Jim> grained details of ANSI-C ought to be considered again, rather than Jim> accepted unthinkingly as "THE" answer. Let's try to clean things up a Jim> little bit around the edges. I think I'd agree with this, but let's make it a question instead. Is there anyone out there doing something with C++ where they need absolute ANSI-C compatibility at compile time? What are the benefits of taking this draconian an approach to a language that's still growing? To me, the ability to link ANSI-C functions with C++ code is more than sufficient and, in some cases, helps improve the code by separating programming styles. Its nice for programmer learning curve for there to be a significant overlap in ANSI-C and C++, but there is already divergence, so why not attempt to improve things? -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"