Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!brucee
From: brucee@alice.UUCP (Bruce Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Numerical C and C++
Message-ID: <2816@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Jun-84 02:28:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.2816
Posted: Fri Jun  1 02:28:46 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 12:10:56 EDT
References: <1311@mhuxt.UUCP> <5300001@hpdcdb.UUCP>, <1945@rlgvax.UUCP> <2811@alice.UUCP>, <1973@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 25

>>>   According to some papers on the "C++" language done at Bell (which they're
>>>   now just calling "C" and are calling what those of us in the real world
>>>   know as "C" "old C"), you can:
>>
>> You seem to know a lot about what's going on here at Bell, Guy.
>> Actually you are as ignorant as the other people who submit
>> twenty news items a day.
> 
> Oh, piss off.  I'm only quoting what I read in the technical report which
> was, in case you didn't know it, put out by AT&T Bell Laboratories.  If you
> want to argue with the author of the CSTR (I won't try and spell it because
> 1) I don't have the papers at hand and 2) your little snide comment makes it
> not worth the effort) go right ahead.  He states rather explicitly there
> that C++ is also being called C and that what was C is being called "old C".
> I only know what I read in the papers.  When the person who currently has
> the papers returns from the business trip they're on, I'll be more than glad
> to cite the exact statement, CSTR and page number and everything.
> 
> Sort of makes you look a little foolish, doesn't it?

I know the paper, I know the author.  He calls them C and old-C
respectively.  No-one else in 1127 does.  You look a little foolish
yourself, Guy.  First you believed what you read in the papers
then you got real mad when someone pointed out your error.
Re-flames by mail please.  Some people may not like your next obscenity.