This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ - fundamentals question
Ivan <email@example.com> writes:
| On Tuesday 03 December 2002 16:36, Michael Matz wrote:
| > Hi,
| > On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Ivan wrote:
| > > Why fundamental types are not realized as classes in g++?
| > Because that wouldn't be C++.
| I'm seriously doubt that: it depends on how it's realized.
G++ aims at implementing the ISO C++ specification. If you don't like
the current definition of C++, please take it to the ISO C++ committee
and try to convince them to change the language. Until that happens,
it is pointless and a waste of resource to argue here.