This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ - fundamentals question
- From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Ivan <afm at php4 dot ru>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, gcc at gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:16:38 -0800
- Subject: Re: g++ - fundamentals question
On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 06:54 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
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.
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.