Re: What do you think of SPECS?
rpgfan3233 wrote:
In "A Modest Proposal: C++ Resyntaxed," Ben Werther and Damian
Conway provided an altered C++ syntax; a syntax meant to be easier
to
understand. You can find the paper online in HTML format [1]. If you
prefer PDF or PostScript, they are available for download from the
same Web page.
After reading it, I find it much easier to understand, though I
admit
that acclimation could very well take a long time. Since it is
proposed that it make use of the same preprocessor, I believe that
it might be feasible to consider.
My question is: what do _you_ think of SPECS?
[1] -
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/HTML/ModestProposal.html
I think they somehow put the focus at the wrong level, and improve a
few little things that are not too important, improving C rather than
C++.
They also introduce new confusions while trying to solve the old ones,
for example:
type myint : int; // this is a typedef, not a new type
You would also use the keyword 'obj' to define a reference, even
though a reference is not an object. Confusing?
If you are going to change the syntax, why not disallow declaring
multiple variables in the same declaration?
I wouldn't have chosen keywords like obj, func, ctor, or dtor in a new
language, but gone the Ada way of selecting complete words that are
already short (like limited instead of protected).
Some of the things are not even worth "fixing", like interface to
assembly, friend functions or C style casts. Is the array form of
placement new really a big problem? Using the continue keyword to,
well, continue execution in a switch-statement, but not in a
for-statement?!
It is not often that I run into the "TemplateClass<( 1>2 )>" problem,
or that I have to add an extra template keyword to resolve a nested
template expansion. It is also not at all obvious to me why "[public]"
is better that "public:". The operator +:= just looks silly.
Bo Persson