Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!icot32!nttlab!gama!etlcom!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond
From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Any interest in making C++ a real superset of ANSI C?
Message-ID: <10308@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 31 May 89 03:15:26 GMT
References: <7435@hoptoad.uucp> <9395@alice.UUCP>
Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET
Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 32

In article <9395@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:

>Here's an example of why C++ does it the way it does.
>	class Complex { ... };
>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);

Very true.  This is why C almost copied the "typedef" construct from
Pascal.  "typedef" is very important.  Good C programmers use it and
good C++ programmers would use it for an example like this.

	typedef class Complex Complex;
	class Complex { ... };

A minor pain for new code, just as in C, and no pain for its users.

>> 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.

Yes, just as C++ breaks every non-trival C program ever written.
C++ should be fixed.

--
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-implementing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?