overloading, template, exception handling and c

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Andrew Poelstra a écrit :

Linux uses the same CPU, and nothing in the proposal is windows specific.

Linux is not constrained to x86. Also, there are other platforms than Linux
and Windows.

Just polemic, polemic, polemic.

Oh, be fair to yourself. You don't /just/ spout polemic. You also advertise
your product, over and over again. The rest of us don't do that. Why do you
think it's okay for you to do it?

 

[CBFalconer]

Andrew Poelstra a écrit :
.... snip ...

Linux uses the same CPU, and nothing in the proposal is windows
specific.

Just polemic, polemic, polemic.

No, Linux CAN use the same CPU. It can also use other CPUs. How
many distinct CPU architectures does LCC-Win32 run on? I have
noted before that it doesn't even run on a '486 executing W98,
which is not by any measure a distinct architecture from a
Pentium. Does this bode well for your assertions that the
proposals are portable?

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Andrew Poelstra a écrit :

Please read the proposal. There I describe an algorithm for choosing the
overloaded/operator function.

g++, MSVC++, and various other compilers use different algorithms,
none of which are the same as yours (at most one is the same), and
one that I designed is different from all of them! Name mangling
locks you into a specific compiler, and frequently a single CPU or
operating system.

I have proposed a method to avoid mangling for overloaded functions.
Please read the document.

The two functions need to be different, because of the way that C
interfaces with [x86] assembler. I don't want that kind of added
complexity.

Linux uses the same CPU, and nothing in the proposal is windows specific.

As Richard said, Linux is not constrained to x86. I personally have written
code for x86, x86_64, PPC, ARM, NES, and the Linksys WRT54G. (I'm not sure
what exact processor the last two use). I know that I can do C on all those
systems reasonably efficently, thanks to C's low-level nature. With a lot
of your proposed add-ons, I'd lose that low-level-icity.

Just polemic, polemic, polemic.

You are arguing as well, and advertising too.

 

[John Bode]

Why there is no overloading (function and operator), function templates
and exception handling support in c? after all these are all useful
programming constructs.

What prevents ANSI/ISO committee to add these into c?

We already have C++.

 

[v4vijayakumar]

We already have C++.

yes. we already have comp.lang.c++ too!

 

[santosh]

yes. we already have comp.lang.c++ too!

And we already have enough trolls in this group too!

 

[v4vijayakumar]

And we already have enough trolls in this group too!

I don't know what a troll is before reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll. I think I am not the one.

I am convinced by two answers to my question.

1. common sense
2. we already have c++

but, I am looking for some concrete answers and still I hope.

 

[santosh]

I don't know what a troll is before reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll. I think I am not the one.

Okay, tell me what you think tommorow.

I am convinced by two answers to my question.

1. common sense

Of which you can do with some.

2. we already have c++

Thanks for the timely reminder. Bjarne will be greatful to you.

but, I am looking for some concrete answers and still I hope.

I'm inspired by your positive attitude.

 

[pete]

I don't know what a troll is before reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll. I think I am not the one.

I am convinced by two answers to my question.

1. common sense
2. we already have c++

but, I am looking for some concrete answers and still I hope.

"The way that C should be",
regarding proposals for new features and such,
is on topic on

Try to organize your thoughts very well before posting there.
They're not as technically casual over there, as we are here.

 

[CBFalconer]

"The way that C should be",
regarding proposals for new features and such,
is on topic on

Try to organize your thoughts very well before posting there.
They're not as technically casual over there, as we are here.

Come on. Isn't it obvious that v4vijayakumar has a language
barrier, and that he has accepted the primary reasons for no silly
extensions. It is high time to put this thread to the natural
death it deserves.

--
Some informative links:
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html