This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: g++ - fundamentals question

On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 06:54  AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

Ivan <> 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.
Gaby's suggestion of arguing that WG21 change the specification is
a good one.

Another good suggestion: if you don't like C++ then you might
find that you like some other language better.  (You might like
Eiffel or C#, for example.)  If you find that no existing language
meets your needs, then you might need to design and implement your
own language.  If you do choose to implement a new language, you
might find gcc a useful resource.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]