Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:50:35 +0000
Harald van D?k said:
<snip>
Please tell me if any part of this, according to you, changes the
essential character, or makes it invalid C90, or if this isn't enough
to make it valid C++.
I'm impressed. You did a lot better than the last person to try. But you had
to hack the code around some - including one very tedious change to get
around the string literal problem.
You will, of course, recognise that the code was a highly compressed, and
thus artificial, illustration of portability problems between C and C++.
Unfortunately, in normal production code the problems are rather more
thinly spread out, and harder to spot. It is certainly true that some
people will simply mv foo.c foo.cpp, and then trust in God and their
compiler. I cannot help but see the risks in such an approach.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
.
- References:
- Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Simplicity has a future
- Prev by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Previous by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|