Mark said:
Well, frankly I also thought you dropped a "not" and I'm not convinced
there was a call to be quite so rude.
I clearly have a problem communicating with both Mark McIntyre and Keith
Thompson. I have no idea why Mark thinks that was "so rude" or Keith
thinks it was "getting quite so personal about it". What I wrote is a
simple idiom expressing a lack of understanding of why someone had
written something. If Mark thinks it "so rude" amd Keith thinks it "so
personal", I'm sorry. I'm sure the problem is with my writing; I've
otherwise seen little sign of chips on the shoulders of these gentlemen.
Idiomatic C can't be used in C++
unless you take great care to avoid all sorts of trivial C-isms and
add in extra C++ specific stuff.
Mark has misunderstood what I responded to and what I wrote. Mark is
quite right that "idiomatic C can't be used in C++". That is completely
beside the point. I wrote, quoting the OP,
>Idiomatic C Code is "usable with both C and C++."
The word "with" and and the word "in" are not the same, and the OP's
assertion that C++ism were necessary for code to be "usable with both C
and C++" is blatantly false.