home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!network.ucsd.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!mrccrc!warwick!bham!bhamvx!mccauleyba
- From: mccauleyba@vax1.bham.ac.uk (Brian McCauley)
- Subject: Re: Array anachronisms
- Sender: usenet@rs6000.bham.ac.uk (USENET News Service)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov11.181959.1@vax1.bham.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:19:59 GMT
- Lines: 26
- References: <1992Nov6.190320.1@vax1.bham.ac.uk> <1992Nov11.004038.17772@microsoft.com>
- Organization: University of Birmingham
-
- In article <1992Nov11.004038.17772@microsoft.com>, jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:
- > In article <1992Nov6.190320.1@vax1.bham.ac.uk> mccauleyba@vax1.bham.ac.uk (Brian McCauley) writes:
- >>Why must be live with the anachonistic restictions on the use of array
- >>variables?
- >
- > I agree with your arguments, but some of the counterarguments are:
- >
- > [2 very valid points]
- >
- > Since non-C-braindead-flavors of arrays can easily be implemented using
- > templates, why invent a new slightly-less-braindead implementation of
- > arrays built-in to C++? Instead, lobby the C++ libraries committee to
- > put the arrays features you like into their proposed array class template.
-
- OK C++ libraries committee - did you hear that.
-
- BTW my objection to the handling of arrays was not that it would be useful
- to allow array type to behave like any other type but that it was just plain
- ugly to have a different set of rules for a subset of types.
- --
- \\ ( ) NO BULLSHIT! from BAM (Brian McCauley)
- . _\\__[oo
- .__/ \\ /\@ E-mail: B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk
- . l___\\ Fax: +44 21 625 2175
- # ll l\\ Snail: 197 Harborne Lane, Birmingham, B29 6SS, UK
- ###LL LL\\ ICBM: 52.5N 1.9W
-