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: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:21:44 +0000
Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword
References: <20030104142915.3BD6EF2DF9@nile.gnat.com> <87el7tneoh.fsf@merlin.maxx.bg> <15894.64524.464371.216489@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>

Andrew Haley wrote:-

> 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...

Or C++ 8-)

Neil.

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

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