Re: Standard Versus Non-Standard C++
On Monday, July 2, 2012 4:52:07 PM UTC-5, Bo Persson wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin skrev 2012-07-02 20:15:
But if I see the word "class", as a keyword, then I have
certain expectations about the semantics of that keyword, according
to the C++ standard, and if those expectations are violated by,
for example, not making the member functions private by default,
then to me, that is changing the semantics of a fundamental C++
keyword.
But you have to accidentally write "interface class" for that to happen.
What are the odds for doing that by mistake?
Not very high for a veteran C++ coder. But imagine an 18-year-old
student who is just learning C++. Actually, lets skip the hypothetical
and use an actual situation:
One of my students is a 32-year-old mother of three.
She is just starting to learn C++ and very busy with a full-time job.
She has no idea what is standard and what is not. Being on Windows,
she was going to use Visual Studio Express, but I talked her out of
it because Microsoft decided, at one point, that the upcoming version
of Visual Studio Express would only allow Metro development.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/visual-studio-pricing/
Note the significance of this. Even "Hello, World." would require
managed (non-standard) C++. The console was forbidden.
You can imagine, trying to explain to a student who does not know
what a FOR loop is, the difference between managed and unmanaged code,
and why she should abstain from an IDE that only allows non-standard
C++ development. It took effort, but she got a copy of full Visual
Studio, and wrote her "Hello, World!" two weeks ago. and instead of it
containing a bunch of .NET code, it looked very much like the "Hello,
World!" that we all wrote when we first started.
Had it not been for my insistence, she likely would have been immersed
in a world of .NET, with only a vague realization, if that, that she
was limiting herself intellectually. If I had told her, "You're using
a language that has C++ in the name, but it really is not..", I am
not sure she would have believed me.
And if you were to write "enum class", also mentioned in the paper, that
now IS correct C++.
[meaning this paper - LCL]:
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/uk-objections.pdf
So basically, what you are saying is that, the first blob of code is
not C++, and the second blob is. I agree.
I just wish Microsoft would stop saying that the first blob is C++.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]