Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!sharkey!mcf!mibte!gamma!thumper!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Any interest in making C++ a real superset of ANSI C?
Message-ID: <9395@alice.UUCP>
Date: 26 May 89 23:02:47 GMT
References: <7435@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 43

In article <7435@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> I think C++ would be a lot better language if it was a superset of ANSI
> C.  I can get along with stealing a few identifiers as new keywords,
> like "class".  But the gross change that makes "struct foo {...};"
> equivalent to "typedef struct foo {...} foo;" is too much to bear.

Really?  Exactly what about it is unbearable?

> Surely the burden of incompatability is too high a price to pay, when
> the solution is simple:  either writing "struct/union/class/enum foo"
> when you declare a "foo", or explicitly coding a typedef yourself in
> the header file, if you like typedefs.

Here's an example of why C++ does it the way it does.

	class Complex {
	private:
		double r, i;
	public:
		Complex(double rr = 0,double ii=0) { r = rr; i = ii; }
		// and so on
	};

It is much more convenient to be able to write

	Complex z (3, 4);
	z += Complex (1, -1);

than it would be to write

	class Complex z (3, 4);
	z += class Complex (1, -1);

Classes are the central concept in C++; it is important to
make them as easy to use as possible.

> Is everyone writing C++ code that depends on this behaviour?

Absolutely.  Changing it at this point would break essentially
every non-trivial C++ program ever written.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com