Mark.Tucker@CMU-CS-GANDALF.ARPA (07/11/84)
I also started reading INFO-C *after* the discussions on object oriented extensions to C. So if someone has any archives of the pertinent messages, I would appreciate your forwarding them tho me. After reading the C++ rationale and reference manual, I am convinced that the C++ extensions are so easy to implement, that there is no reason they shouldn't be included in an ANSI C standard. If you're going to standardize, you might as well bring C completely up to date. C++ will leave Ada in the dust as a "package building language." -- Mark Tucker. PS: Does anyone know if C++ is available from Bell ??
crm@rti-sel.UUCP (07/16/84)
Can anyone tell me how to get a copy of the C++ reference and rationale mentioned in this article? Also, what is "INFO-C" and how can *I* read it? Charlie Martin ...mcnc!rti-sel!crm
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/17/84)
> After reading the C++ rationale and reference manual, I am convinced that > the C++ extensions are so easy to implement, that there is no reason they > shouldn't be included in an ANSI C standard. If you're going to > standardize, you might as well bring C completely up to date. Were you reading the same Bell Labs tech reports I was?!? I'm not yet sure quite what to make of C++ ... but it's not C. It's an interesting experiment, and may well be the wave of the future. But despite the tone of the tech reports, C++ is not just "the latest C"; it is a new language. A very new language. Today's ANSI effort is standardizing the current C language, not the latest wonderful new C-derived language. Once there are a few more C++ implementations, and some more experience with it, *then* it might be appropriate to standardize C++, as C++. In short, however interesting C++ may be, C++ != C . -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry