home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30 / NN_1992_30.iso / spool / comp / std / cplus / 1765 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-12  |  1.4 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark
  2. From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
  3. Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
  4. Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
  5. Message-ID: <24400@alice.att.com>
  6. Date: 12 Dec 92 20:11:37 GMT
  7. Article-I.D.: alice.24400
  8. References: <9234601.10277@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Dec11.231131.10956@microsoft.com> <24392@alice.att.com> <1992Dec12.162211.5076@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
  9. Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
  10. Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
  11. Lines: 24
  12.  
  13. In article <1992Dec12.162211.5076@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
  14.  
  15. > Andrew,
  16. > Would any of these be likely to be accepted by the committee?
  17.  
  18. It's hard for me to say -- I am in the Core working group, which
  19. meets concurrently with the Extensions group.  Since the latter would
  20. consider any such proposal, and since I don't really know the dynamics
  21. of that group, I'm ill-placed to comment.
  22.  
  23. > Do you personally favour nested functions?
  24.  
  25. In general, yes.  For C++, I'm not sure.
  26.  
  27. > If not, why not?
  28.  
  29. The main argument against it is that C doesn't have them, which means
  30. that having them in C++ would make C interoperability more difficult.
  31. It would also be more difficult to interface C++ programs with
  32. low-level assembly-language things like on-board controllers.  I don't
  33. care about that personally, but I know that other people do.
  34. -- 
  35.                 --Andrew Koenig
  36.                   ark@europa.att.com
  37.