Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!mimsy!cvl!elsie!nih-csl!keith
From: keith@nih-csl.UUCP (keith gorlen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ vs Objective-C
Message-ID: <275@nih-csl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Sep-87 13:49:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: nih-csl.275
Posted: Sat Sep 26 13:49:09 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Sep-87 07:25:35 EDT
References: <3405@ece-csc.UUCP> <638@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <1811@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <338@crin.crin.fr>
Organization: NIH-CSL, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 14
Summary: C++ is more "unified" than Objective C because it has user-controlled implicit type conversion.
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.misc:696 comp.lang.smalltalk:337 comp.lang.c++:467

In article <338@crin.crin.fr>, tombre@crin.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes:
> 2) the same can be said of C++. It is not more "unified" than Objective-C.

Yes, it is.  A C++ programmer can write functions to convert instances
of his own classes into fundamental C types and vice-versa.  The C++
compiler, since C++ is strongly typed, can arrange to call these type
conversion functions automatically.  Thus, it is possible to implement
your own class String, and use instances of String interchangeably
with char*, for example.
-- 
	Keith Gorlen			phone: (301) 496-5363
	Building 12A, Room 2017		uucp: uunet!mimsy!elsie!nih-csl!keith
	National Institutes of Health
	Bethesda, MD 20892