Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ssc!happym!polari!rlb
From: rlb@polari.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ as a better C (fact or fiction)?
Summary: C++ as a better Lint
Message-ID: <456@polari.UUCP>
Date: 11 May 88 11:54:15 GMT
References: <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM> <706@vlot.cs.vu.nl>
Organization: Polarserv, Seattle WA
Lines: 18
Posted: Wed May 11 07:54:15 1988

In article <706@vlot.cs.vu.nl>, jos@cs.vu.nl (Jos Warmer) writes:
> In article <6590041@hplsla.HP.COM> bobk@hplsla.HP.COM (Bob Kunz) writes:
> >
> 
> I would advise using C++ to anyone. If not for its extra facilities,
> then at least for use as a MUCH better lint.
> 
> 				  Jos Warmer
> 				  jos@cs.vu.nl

I can't glean too much from the C++ book about what kinds of semantic checks
the compiler performs beyond type checking for expressions and function args
(and checking to see that all possible values are accounted for if you switch
on an enumeration).  Doesn't lint provide type checking?  What semantic checks
does C++ provide that exceed those of (Unix) lint?  A comparison of features
would be most enlightening.

Ron Burk