Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dragan, post: 3972884"] While very abstract this subthread portion seems, you seem to be saying: "yes, you're right, so you're wrong". Let me clarify: I said I can think in simple terms but not or can't in C++ because C++ has to be like a president/politician walking the fence trying to be all things to all people and I live in Greenbough Alabama and just need a new ping pong paddle. In short, I'd MUCH rather have a language tool that I could compare against my checkoffs (can/cannot haves) rather than have to spend oodles of time deciphering terms like "trivial constructor" and the complex interplay between all the other 1250 pages of the standard. I was just explaining what I said, but suddenly, I feel catharted! k. I'm not sure from where in your other post I quoted "requirements". [/QUOTE]