> >Sorry, but it means that standard C++ is fundamentally broken. *If* one
> >has to avoid some features at any cost it means that you are advocating
> >usage of language different from C++. It may be a subset of C++, but it is
> >*not* C++ per se.
>
> Have you been using trigraphs recently ?
They are outright silly and useless, but don't incur any overhead.
Useless - yes, hurt anything except feelings of poor souls forced to read
the code - no.
> Do you feel forced to return structures in any program that you write ?
Decent compiler (gcc, for example) handles it quite nice. Compile
and look at the code. Oh, and wake up - you slept about 15 years.
> Do you feel obliged to use scanf and locales in any programs that you
> write ?
They belong to library. Standard library, but it means *nothing*.
No, I don't count overloaded << and >> as elements of core C++. Elements
of standard environment, yes. But *not* the language per se. BTW, I don't
count STL as part of C++. (Reportedly) ugly library that got (reportedly)
too popular, but that's it. Now, exceptions *are* part of language.
Templates are part of language. And they are *ugly*.
> Is C broken ?
Everything is broken, but C is not even close to C++ in *that*
kind of breakage.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/