Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!huxley!glenn From: glenn@huxley.huxley.bitstream.com (Glenn P. Parker) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: Date: 28 Mar 91 19:12:42 GMT References: <299@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <1991Mar25.145441.1@happy.colorado.edu> <20106@alice.att.com> <3481@engadm3.csd.mot.com> <1991Mar26.191259.14470@i88.isc.com> <4693@osc.COM> Sender: glenn@huxley.UUCP Reply-To: (Glenn Parker) Distribution: comp Organization: Bitstream, Inc. Lines: 45 In-reply-to: jgk@osc.COM's message of 28 Mar 91 01:01:36 GMT In article <4693@osc.COM> jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes: > Besides that, Americans tends to forget that not everyone in the world speaks > English. Things like `+', `0', and `<' are pretty much the same no matter > where you go. Are you going to translate `or' into `o', `ou', and any number > of other things? > > That's why i don't like `improvements' like using `or' instead of `|'. Yes, indeed. Americans (like Joe) also tend to forget that not every language (or keyboard) in the world has `|', `{', `}', `[', and `]'. *That* is why using `or' instead of `||' makes sense. Granted, it's not the correct word in all the other languages, but at *least* they can type it in. What about all the other English-derived C++ keywords, anyway? > I consider this simplifying so much that it's wrong. As I hope I've made clear, it's not a question of simplification, but rather accessibility. > There's the obvious objection that there are two `or' operators in C. > Sometimes you can interchange them, but in general you know which one you > want. Clearly the English word isn't very precise. The x3j16 proposal suggests `bitor' for `|' and `or' for `||'. In the context of a C++ specification, the words seem quite precise. > There are a number of causes, including inline functions, virtual > inheritance, invisible copy constructors, and i'm sure there are more. > The end result is that when you say `a = b', you have no idea what the > [C++] compiler is actually going to put there. Honestly, it's not *that* bad. Most of the time, all of the examples you cite can be anticipated and understood without examining the compiler's output. Of course, it's not as easy as it was with C (but that's really an advantage, when you think about it :-). > ...finally you just have to accept that C++ is far from a WYSIWYG > language. Precisely. If you want a "real" WYSIWIG language, use assembler. -- Glenn P. Parker glenn@bitstream.com Bitstream, Inc. uunet!huxley!glenn 215 First Street BIX: parker Cambridge, MA 02142-1270