Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!bronze!copper!rschmidt From: rschmidt@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (roy schmidt) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: TurboC and TurboC++ Summary: Can't go backwards! Keywords: Antianachronistication Message-ID: <1991Jan8.204452.621@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: 8 Jan 91 20:44:52 GMT References: <350bahrd@yoda.byu.edu> Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Lines: 24 >In article <350bahrd@yoda.byu.edu> bahrd@yoda.byu.edu writes: > > I was wondering what the difference between TurboC 2.0 and > TurboC++ 1.0 in the > standard C mode was? Is there any portability porblems if I write code in > TurboC++ using standard C conventions and then giving the code > to a friend who has Turbo C 2.0? Please let me know!!! > TC++, to begin with, has a full-up preprocessor available unlike the rather cripple one included with TC 2.0. Next, TC++ supports a wider variety of pointers, etc. I am not going to do a detailed list, but it is unlikely that *everything* you write in TC++ as standard C can be compiled with TC 2.0. However, just like with any other compiler, you can carefully write your code that so that it will compile on either version, at the cost of not taking advantage of more sophisticated features of the new compiler. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Schmidt | #include Indiana University | /* They are _my_ thoughts, and you can't Graduate School of Business | have them, so there! */