harst@iravcl.ira.uka.de (02/04/88)
Hello !
I'd be rather interrested in having either a complete and recent
Definition of the C++ standard or even better a PD implementation
in C source.The only real catch is , that being here in Karlsruhe,
Germany, getting in contact or reaching somebody who mails is a
little difficult.So , if possible , give me a local address.
Thanks for reading and even more for any answer , that could
be helpful.
Yours sincerly
Michael Wohlwenddjones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (02/09/88)
in article <47@iravcl.ira.uka.de>, harst@iravcl.ira.uka.de says: > Posted: Thu Feb 4 15:43:17 1988 > Organisation: Universitaet Karlsruhe, IRA, F.R. Germany > > Hello ! > > I'd be rather interrested in having either a complete and recent > Definition of the C++ standard ... So would I. So would I. Anybody at ATT got your ears on? Bjarne, you there? Is anyone working on such a thing? Or is C++ standardization going to follow the example of every other language you can think of and wind up mired in a committee years from now? Perhaps a committee which wants to redefine the language? Now's the time! (Hip. Hip. Rally 'round.) To those who say, "The language is still evolving. It is too early for a standard. Let's use MY version of the compiler as a defacto standard, for the time being," I would like to say, "Phfghtt!" But of course, I am far too polite to say that. :-) Write out a standard language definition now. If you add features, ammend the standard. If (perish the thought) you find that you have to change the way something works or remove a feature, then change the definition. It's not a happy thing to do, but at least there is an "audit" trail recording the changes. - djones
bs@alice.UUCP (02/11/88)
(djones @ Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca) writes: > in article <47@iravcl.ira.uka.de>, harst@iravcl.ira.uka.de says: > > Posted: Thu Feb 4 15:43:17 1988 > > Organisation: Universitaet Karlsruhe, IRA, F.R. Germany > > > > Hello ! > > > > I'd be rather interrested in having either a complete and recent > > Definition of the C++ standard ... > > So would I. So would I. > > Anybody at ATT got your ears on? Bjarne, you there? > > Is anyone working on such a thing? I'm here and I'm working on it. We are trying to ferret out all the dark corners and get them specified. We need a complete, comprehensible and generally available description of C++; one that doesn't change all the time and one that isn't merely a description of a product. We will get it. However, such things do take time, so don't be too impatient. The only thing worse than reading a reference manual is writing one.
SRWMRBD@windy.dsir.govt.nz (ROBERT) (10/11/89)
Is anyone using PforCe++?
PforCe++ is a product for MsDOS consisting of a large number of
C++ routines for building special purpose data-base systems. It
included routines for making b-trees, hash searching, and screen and
keyboard interfaces.
The copy I purchased was for Glockenspiel C++ version 1.1x and
Microsoft C version 4.
It doesn't work under the latest version of Glockenspiel C++ and
Microsoft C 5. (I have recompiled the source but I haven't tried very hard
to do any translation, possibly the problem is in the mixing of C and
C++ routines).
PforCe++ is now a discontinued product, and I get there impression that
there is no help from the present owner (Polytron Corp).
So has anyone out there updated PforCe++?
kjh@visual1.jhuapl.edu (Kenneth J. Heeres) (11/05/90)
Subject:C++ compilers for VMS Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 18:35:00 GMT We are looking for a C++ compiler for VMS. Does anybody have any recomendations? A plus would be if the compiler is also available under Unix. thanks ken
chaloux@maestro.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux) (05/28/91)
I am new to C++ and have come across the following problem. Say that you are building a communications program and you have two different kinds of ports you must read and two kinds of messages that are naturally associated with each port. In otherwords you have a Port_A class and a Port_B class. They read and write respectively Message_A class objects and Message_B class objects. Now say that you want to write your program such that you can write a message to a port without knowing the kind of port or the kind of message. No problem. Have a base Message class and a base Port class. Have virtual functions for the Port class that write Message_A and Message_B type objects. Now have a write virtual function for class Message that takes as an argument an object of type Port. Now we might write the message as follows: message->write(&port_object) Since a class derived from a parent class can be used in place of the parent class, it doesn't matter whether the port_object is a Port_A object or a Port_B object. The appropriate function for either Port_A or Port_B gets called depending on whether the message was a Message_A or Message_B message. The message gets written and everyone is happy, EXCEPT THE COMPILER. To set this up, class Port needs to know about Message_A class and Message_B class. Message_A and Message_B class need to know about type Port. Now imagine you have your include files. The header for class Message_A includes Port.h . The header for Port has to include Message_A.h . When compiling, one of the class definitions is going to come first and the definition for the other class is undefined. OUCH. WHERE AM I MISSING THE BOAT? This problem must have come up before. Is there a standard way for solving it? The only method I can figure out is to have two different header files for one of the classes. The one file has no function definitions in it. Therefore it does not need to include the header file for the other class. This header file can then be included by the other class without things breaking. Thanks in advance.
rmartin@clear.com (Bob Martin) (06/06/91)
In article <1991May28.162856.12685@linus.mitre.org> chaloux@maestro.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux) writes: ... Paraphrase... [Dave has base class for ports and a base class for messages and wants all derived ports and messages to support the following semantics:] > >message->write(&port_object) > [... stuff deleted...] >To set this up, class Port needs to know about Message_A class and Message_B >class. Message_A and Message_B class need to know about type Port. > >Now imagine you have your include files. The header for class Message_A includes >Port.h . The header for Port has to include Message_A.h . When compiling, one >of the class definitions is going to come first and the definition for the >other class is undefined. OUCH. > >WHERE AM I MISSING THE BOAT? > Dave: Try this: ---------------- message.h ---------------- class Port; // declaration of class port.. #include "port.h" not needed. class Message { ... void write(Port&); ... }; --------------- port.h ---------------------- class Message; // declaration again. #include "message.h" not needed class Port { ... void write(Message&); ... } ----------------- message.cc -------------- #include "message.h" #include "port.h" // message implementation needs to know port semantics. void Message::write(Port& thePort) { thePort.write(*this); } ------------------ port.cc ---------------- #include "port.h" void Port::write(Message& theMessage) { ... whatever ports do. } In general the following rule will help keep you out of trouble... If the specification of a class does not need to know the semantics of one of its constituents, then the constituent class should be declared, not #included. -- +-Robert C. Martin-----+:RRR:::CCC:M:::::M:| Nobody is responsible for | | rmartin@clear.com |:R::R:C::::M:M:M:M:| my words but me. I want | | uunet!clrcom!rmartin |:RRR::C::::M::M::M:| all the credit, and all | +----------------------+:R::R::CCC:M:::::M:| the blame. So there. |
steve@sman.dsg.Tandem.COM (Steve Mansour) (06/20/91)
Hello, I'm interested in finding out about code coverage tools for C++. I know about gprof++. Are there others? Is there a program like Sun's tcov for C++? Any leads or suggestions would be greatly appreciated, Steve Mansour -- Steve Mansour steve@dsg.tandem.com Tandem Computers DSG (408) 285-7316