[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
c++ 2.1 diffs
- To: <eric@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: c++ 2.1 diffs
- From: Mark S. Miller <vlad!mark>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 15:09:30 PDT
- Cc: <roger@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <xtech@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <xanadu!son-of-blob!eric's>,41 PDT <9006282141.AA09842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:41:41 PDT
No, it's not an issue for us. PrimArrays don't destruct their contents.
I was only concerned with item #4 since it looked like evidence of a level
of bozoness in the language that could pop up in annoying places.
I don't yet know about this feature (but suspect Michael is correct).
However, even if they bozoed out on this one, I'm overall extremely
impressed with the new Ellis & Stroustroup book. It is both very
clear and very clarifying, and shows an impressive depth of thought
about many seemingly minor issues. (I also found the book quite
entertaining, but I'm wierd.) In particular, for many thing which
we've been scratching our heads and saying "why'd they do it that
way?" they tell us and it usually makes sense. Most important for us,
it is usually sufficiently explicit that we can tell where we get in
trouble with the language definition. More later.
P.S. I certainly wouldn't have designed a language like this, but it
remains to be seen if I can design a language which would be a
rational choice for developing a product in ;-/