home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.eiffel
- Path: munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
- From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
- Subject: Re: type checking in C++ was Re: Hungarian notation
- Message-ID: <9601221.15716@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU (CS-Usenet)
- Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
- References: <4cf8hf$8fe@hopi.gate.net> <DKoBrn.CHs@falcon.daytonoh.attgis.com> <4d1j37$ge8@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:23:37 GMT
-
- mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) writes:
-
- >Dick Menninger (Dick.Menninger@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM) wrote:
- >> The purpose of C++ in its design
- >> and evolution has been to hide implementation while
- >> providing genuinely heavy duty compile-time type checking.
- >
- >Is the goal actually achieved? "heavy duty compile-time type-checking?"
-
- No; the need for backwards compatibility means that it will never be
- fully achieved.
-
- >At one point something like this could be a problem. It it still?
- >
- >function(Type *p) {
- >
- >// One of this may silently crash or do bad things. Both typecheck.
- >
- >// delete p;
- >// delete [] p;
- >
- >}
-
- Yes, that is still a problem. However, it is less of a problem than
- it used to be, because there is now a standard `vector<T>' class
- which can be used instead of C's builtin arrays.
-
- --
- Fergus Henderson WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh
- fjh@cs.mu.oz.au PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3
-