Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From: Elliott Oti <e DOT oti AT stud DOT warande DOT ruu DOT nl>
Subject: Re: Functions in struct's... possible?  How?
Sender: usenet AT fys DOT ruu DOT nl (News system Tijgertje)
Message-ID: <3411018C.5D94@stud.warande.ruu.nl>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:09:00 GMT
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <33FCDA5C DOT 2353659F AT execulink DOT com> <5tippg$ci7$2 AT news DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu> <5tkq9a$2se$1 AT helios DOT crest DOT nt DOT com> <5tmcai$nuo$1 AT news DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu> <340B1E27 DOT 44FAD207 AT alcyone DOT com> <340BF8B7 DOT 69C3 AT stud DOT warande DOT ruu DOT nl> <340F6874 DOT 1636C093 AT alcyone DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: Bipolar Widgets International
Lines: 52
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 
> Richard Rensman wrote:
> 
> > Answering "If you're going to do X often with language Y you might
> > consider using language Z" is perfectly valid here on
> > comp.os.msdos.djgpp, however. This is not a C language forum, and
> > djgpp
> > is not merely a C compiler.
> 
> This is true.  However, the question wasn't, "How do I do X in DJGPP?"

Yes it was.
"How do I do X in C, and C alone" is a question for comp.lang.c, where
it was crossposted to. As has been pointed out before, generic C
questions, for which a generic C answer is required, belong on
comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c.moderated.
Crossposting to comp.djgpp makes it by definition open with respect to
the djgpp programming platform. I agree comp.lang.c has become fouled up
with noise, and has a pitiful response ratio, but that does not make
comp.os.mdos.djgpp a replacement for it. 

> It's one thing if you're asking to do something that is _impossible_ in
> the language in question.  The question was about "functions in
> structs," and the answer is function pointers.  As such there is a very
> clear and definite answer.  No need to send the poster on false trails
> (false in that C++ is not necessary to achieve their goal, which is not
> what such an answer suggests).

You have every right to find the suggestion "Use C++" misleading, or
even downright wrong. That is your right, that is your considered
opinion, you are free to say that.  
Just as the poster who suggested "Use C++" was giving his own opinion.
This is not comp.lang.c, there is nothing inappropriate about saying
that here, and there is no justification for flaming someone for leaving
particular language boundaries.

> > If you find yourself using C++ concepts in C more and more often it
> > might not be a bad idea to switch languages.
> 
> Yes, it might not be.  However, "functions in structs" doesn't
> necessarily immediately bring the conclusion that that is what is
> happening here.  There's a lot more to object orientation than that.

C++ is not synonymous with object orientation, nor is C synonymous with
the lack of it. You should be smart enough to know that, Erik. A tool is
a tool. Don't jump to the conclusion that the only reason to use C++ in
a program is to go all gooey and object oriented. 

-- 
------------ Elliott Oti ---------------
   ------------- http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~oti  ---------