home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage
- From: bs@research.att.com
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: bool
- Date: 7 Feb 1996 00:40:07 GMT
- Organization: ?
- Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++)
- Message-ID: <199602070009.RAA04689@ncar.ucar.EDU>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com
- Content-Type: text
- Content-Length: 1474
- X-Lines: 34
- Originator: clamage@taumet
-
- smeyers@netcom.com (Scott Meyers) writes
-
- > I'm told that one of the members of a struct declared in the Microsoft OLE
- > headers is called "bool". This would seem to present a problem for MS,
- > because they'll have to change their header file (thus annoying their
- > customers) if they want to produce a compiler that supports bool. Does
- > anybody know (1) how the MS representatives on the ANSI/ISO committee let
- > this get through, and (2) whether there are any plans to change the keyword
- > as a result?
-
- Like the representatives on many other companies, the MS representatives on
- the C++ committee has been most cooperative and done great work to create
- a viable standard. This involves balancing the needs of legacy code with
- cleanliness of the language and its libraries.
-
- I don't think the MS representatives let `bool' ``get through.'' I think
- they - most approproiately - decided that in this case use of a name as
- a struct in a proproietary header was less important than getting the
- best name for the language.
-
- Alternative names for `bool' was discussed at the time and there is no
- proposal to change it. IMO there be no any chance for such a change to
- be accepted should someone propose it.
-
- - Bjarne
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
- Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is
- summarized in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- ]
-