Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-winken!uunet!atexnet!adelie!mirror!frog!wang7!ejohanss
From: ejohanss@wang7.UUCP (ejohanss)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Any interest in making C++ a real superset of ANSI C?
Summary: hmmm... I like the c++ way
Message-ID: <2713@wang7.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 89 05:31:00 GMT
References: <7435@hoptoad.uucp> <26575@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Lowell, MA, USA
Lines: 34

In article <26575@watmath.waterloo.edu>, gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) writes:
> In article <7435@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> > [ complaints about "struct x { /*...*/ };" ===
> > "typedef struct x { /*...*/ } x;" ]
> >
> > Is everyone writing C++ code that depends on this behaviour?
> > Or are people avoiding it?  Is there any chance that the language
> > definition will be changed to eliminate it?  Howabout compiler
> > warnings for depending on it?
> 
> I always avoid this, in the hope that the language will someday be changed to
> do things the old way.  I fear that it is a vain hope, however.
> 
>  -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo		gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu

I find this rather interesting.  I always wondered why C added the apparent
clumsiness of "typedef struct {...} foo;"  I was really glad to see C++ 
"clean up" this problem.

My vote goes to leaving C++ struct with it's current definition.  And yes,
I am writing code that counts on the current C++ struct definition.

--- Eric Johansson     ...!ima!wang7!ejohanss


...inews noise....
...inews noise....
...inews noise....
...inews noise....
...inews noise....
...inews noise....
...inews noise....
...inews noise....
...inews noise.... There! are you happy now??!