This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: c++ "with" keyword

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 15:21:48 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword
References: <20030104142915.3BD6EF2DF9@nile.gnat.com><87el7tneoh.fsf@merlin.maxx.bg>

Momchil Velikov writes:
 > >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:
 > 
 >     Robert> If you think "with" is valuable, then the task is to
 >     Robert> convince the guardians of the C++ standard of this. If
 >     Robert> you can't convince the
 > 
 > Not related to this particular "with" discussion, but I couldn't
 > disagree more.  A standards body should not invent language
 > "features", but rather codify existing (proven) extensions.

I totally agree.  A standards should not invent language features, or
-- heaven forbid -- programming languages.  The reason for this is
pretty obvious, in that once a feature is standardized it's too late
to remove it if it has some fatal flaw.

See Algol 68 for what happens if you do it the other way...

Andrew.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: c++ "with" keyword
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: c++ "with" keyword
  - From: Gianni Mariani

References:
- Re: Re: c++ "with" keyword
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: c++ "with" keyword
  - From: Momchil Velikov

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