From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-15 18:04:05
"Paul A. Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
| C compatibility is deemed very highly desirable by many, even BS Himself!
Certainly, many people are for C-compatibility -- including myself.
But the argument given in the proposal is bogus.
| Even if a C++ exceptional version is better as well as more Politically Correct.
Well, as close as possible to C, but not closer. If C-compatibility
means broken semamtics then I prefer we sacrify C-compatibility.
C-compatibility is not a goal in itself.
| There seems to an argument that using templates & exceptions will make it less
| likely to become a C++ Standard. It may be regrettable but true.
I showed why the overloading argument is broken.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk