Re: The reuse of keywords in the C++ standard

Moschops wrote:
> 
> I note with some dismay the proposal to create a new meaning for the
> C and C++ keyword 'auto', as described in the document N1984 (part of
> the proposals for C++0X or whatever it's called now). Efforts are
> being taken to
> 
> ensure it doesn't conflict with the previous meaning of the keyword,
> but why
> 
> not simply have a whole new keyword? These guys aren't stupid, so I
> assume there must be a good reason.
> 

A few things will be in play;

1)   A new keyword has a way of breaking old code that happens to have
used that new keyword as a name of a variable/type/etc.  One of the
design philosophies of C++ has been maintaining backward compatibility
and sup****t of existing code unless there is a significant reason not
to.

2)   If an existing keyword has a name that is applicable to the new
meaning, the introduction of another keyword to sup****t that meaning,
is either redundant or likely to cause confusion for users of the
language.

3)   The auto keyword is very rarely used in practice (in places where
it can be used, it is a default attribute anyway), and scenarios
where the proposed new usage would conflict with the old will be
rare:  the analysis to prevent conflict with the previous meaning will
not be prohibitive.


-- 
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]