Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:319 comp.lang.c:12171
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Third public review of X3J11 C (a scientist speaks up)
Message-ID: <1988Aug28.230108.29549@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <64919@sun.uucp> <8358@smoke.ARPA> <4566@saturn.ucsc.edu> <8365@smoke.ARPA> <887@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1290@garth.UUCP> <1988Aug26.162706.22671@utzoo.uucp> <1317@garth.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 88 23:01:08 GMT

In article <1317@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes:
>Some people have been asking for access to machine specific features. C is
>good at getting at machine features for one particular machine whether they
>exist or not.
>... Does C++ do the same or does it define its machine independent operators
>in terms of specific machine features and give programmers access to the same
>mechanism?

C++ is essentially a superset of C, so it takes the same approach as C.
In both, there is no reason why a perceptive implementor can't provide
machine-specific hooks for users to use to implement packages which have
machine-independent interfaces.  This works rather better in C++, mind
you, because package interfaces are much nicer in C++.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu