[9408] in The GTK GIMP ToolKit mailing list archive
[gtk-list] Re: Was : Why is gtk+ written in C? - now : Quick Rant
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Shutko)
Mon Oct 19 11:48:56 1998
To: gtk-list@redhat.com
From: Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org>
Date: 19 Oct 1998 10:46:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: Paul Miller's message of "Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:50:00 -0400"
Resent-From: gtk-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: gtk-list@redhat.com
>>>>> "P" == Paul Miller <Paul_Miller@avid.com> writes:
P> It's impossible to do void pointer arithmetic in C++ (without an
P> explicit cast), no matter what compiler, because it is illegal.
It's illegal in C as well. (ISO 6.3.6)
P> The point wasn't merely so much about C++ being better for
P> type-safety (it is), but that "ANSI C" isn't nearly as "ANSI" as
P> people think it is, because compilers allow things like that to
P> slip by.
ANSI is very ASNI. There's a nice 200pg standard for it sitting on my
desk. Your complaint is that C compilers don't always complain about
illegal things (because they're allowing extensions). Is there
something about C++ that prohibits compilers from extending anything?
(Unlikely, but even so it wouldn't be followed in practice.)
Therefore, I don't think there's anything inherently better about
using a C++ compiler than a C compiler... while you may get better
warnings now, with some compilers, there's no guarantee.
--
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
SI:%GC-QLX-LUSER-TM governs how long the GC waits before timing out the user.
--
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe gtk-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
