Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!claris!kevin
From: kevin@claris.com (Kevin Watts)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Any interest in making C++ a real superset of ANSI C?
Message-ID: <10213@claris.com>
Date: 27 May 89 01:36:38 GMT
References: <26575@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Claris Corporation, Santa Clara CA
Lines: 21

From article <26575@watmath.waterloo.edu>, by gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton):
> In article <7435@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>> [ complaints about "struct x { /*...*/ };" ===
>> "typedef struct x { /*...*/ } x;" ]

I've never liked the typedef nonsense.  C++'s approach is, IMHO, the way
C should have behaved from the beginning.  Since I've never yet had to
convert any C code to C++, I've had no problems with compatability.

Walter Bright's suggestion (struct as in C, class as in C++) seems like a
reasonable compromise.  It brings up a question: is there any penalty for
using class where struct would do.

How about a compiler flag or #pragma to control this behaviour?  I expect
there are going to be some strong opinions on both sides of this issue,
and I don't think it's worth fighting about.

-- 
 Kevin Watts        ! Any opinions expressed here are my own, and are not
 Claris Corporation ! neccessarily shared by anyone else.  Unless they are
 kevin@claris.com   ! patently absurd, in which case they're not mine either.