g++ - fundamentals question

[Matt Austern]

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

> Ivan <afm@php4.ru> 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.

			--Matt