Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Were GNU C extensions proposed for the standard? Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 90 16:10:42 GMT References: <153@dy4.UUCP> <660077@hpclisp.HP.COM> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 12 > > > Since the ANSI standardization of C++ is under way, there is not much > > > point in a subsequent standard for C that is not C++. > > Why not? C is not C++.... > Well, since C++ gives you almost everything you ever wanted in C, why not [ use it without the object-oriented stuff ] Because I might prefer the way Co2 or Objective C handles object oriented stuff, and it's awfully silly to add two sets of O-O overhead to the language. Besides, there's lots of stuff I'm missing from C that's not in C++. Coroutines, for example... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'