Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!hao!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Jerry Pournelle on UNIX (from BYTE)
Message-ID: <7019@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 9 Jan 88 10:51:10 GMT
References: <11129@brl-adm.ARPA> <170@hdr.UUCP> <232@unicom.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <232@unicom.UUCP> greywolf@unicom.UUCP (When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece.) writes:
>Does C-- follow the ANSI standards?

It's C++, thank you, and there is no ANSI standard for C++.
If you mean, can a C++ implementation conform to the proposed
ANSI C standard, then it cannot, since (among other things) it
preempts additional keywords.  I recall Bjarne saying that
once the ANSI C standard has been adopted, he'll consider
making changes to C++ to bring it more into line as a superset
of ANSI C.

By the way, C++ is definitely a better systems implementation
language than C, from a technical viewpoint.  I'm a bit
skeptical about such a reimplementation of UNIX, however,
because I think we're going to see a lot of old bugs reappear.