Re: porting from C++Builder

Daniel wrote:
Or rather, C had support for function pointers since before your pet
language was dreamt up. Stop complaining about this non-issue.

don't really know what pet language you're talking about, didn't know
i had a pet language. of course, c has pointers to functions (i am
using this since 1978, by that time, you were drinking milk). but you

Actually I wasn't born yet. But though I may be young I seem to have
learned something in the meantime.

seam to miss the point of being type safe! it's really a huge waste

Function pointers are type-safe, don't know what makes you think otherwise.
In fact, the type-safety may be a little overly restrictive by not allowing
covariance and contravariance (as appropriate, on return values and
parameters, which may or may not be read-only/write-only pointers) which
would also be type-safe. But variance with pointer arguments is HARD so
it's no surprise that it simply isn't allowed.

of time to trip you over closures and so on... you would not

Closures really aren't so important, nor even anonymous functions, they're
just syntactic sugar for local types. Allowing templates to specialize to
local types is the important change, the other two are just minor effects of
that enabling decision.

understand since you don't seam to get it why c++ is better than c
and why c++0x should be better than today's c++ (and it's obviously
not gonna)

happy mvp
d


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
    ... if any reader happens to have a literature ... >reference to post. ... > the use of pointers. ... the Cyclone project, another type-safe version of C, is at ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
    ... > handling of pointers, you can't do integer operations (like XOR) on ... Type-safe and GC are orthogonal issues. ... pertinant language feature was GC, ...
    (sci.crypt)
Loading