home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.lang.c++:11521 comp.std.c++:951
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!mole-end!mat
- From: mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end
- Subject: Re: Language extensions for run-time type identification
- Message-ID: <1992Jul25.071125.4141@uunet.uu.net!mole-end>
- Summary: Yeah, that's it--BREAK CODE!
- Organization: :
- References: <1992Jul21.143131.6902@cadsun.corp.mot.com> <1992Jul23.200803.22371@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 07:11:25 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- In article <1992Jul23.200803.22371@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
- > In article <1992Jul22.212111.12530@taumet.com> steve@taumet.com (Steve Clamage) writes:
-
- > >We could patch this up by saying you have to use 'class' rather than
- > >'struct' to get RTTI, but this would break existing C++ code which
- > >relies on the equivalence of 'struct' and 'class'. Maybe this is
- > >not too high a penalty, but it would have to be carefully considered.
-
- > IMHO making struct == class (baring access defaults) was a poor
- > decision. I would much rather 'struct' MEANT C-compatible.
- > So I would not be dismayed at the change suggested above.
-
- You wouldn't, but I would. That's an awfully high-priced change. And I
- think that there are a few hundred million lines of C++ in the various
- programs that would be affected.
- --
- (This man's opinions are his own.)
- From mole-end Mark Terribile
-
- uunet!mole-end!mat, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
-