From: myknees AT aol DOT com (Myknees)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Namespaces
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <1998091305193500.BAA23172@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
Date: 13 Sep 1998 05:19:34 GMT
References: <35FA9A4D DOT 8D5ECD5F AT unb DOT ca>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In article <35FA9A4D DOT 8D5ECD5F AT unb DOT ca>, Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca> writes:

>Myknees wrote:
>> Consequentially, there is not so much of a direct correspondence in C++
>between
>> source code and machine operations.  You can say *p++, and it might not
>have
>> _anything_ to do with a pointer or incrementation.  (e.g. if p is an
>iterator
>> that's not implemented as a pointer and the postfix ++ operator has been
>> defined to do something else.)
>	I don't see that as a bad thing.  I think it makes the language more
>flexible.

I didn't mean to imply that it's bad.  I like programming in perl and C++.  It
can be very convenient to say something and get a lot of hidden functionality,
but I'll always like the terseness of C.

--Ed (Myknees)