>>
>> I note with some dismay the proposal to create a new meaning for the C
>> and C++ keyword 'auto', as described in the do***ent 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.
>>
>
> Yeah, nobody used auto (it was a storage class specifier that specified
> automatic storage, and since local variables are automatic by default,
> and you can't use it elsewhere, what's the point?), and so it was
> reused, to avoid adding new keywords. If you add new keywords, you risk
> breaking existing code.
>
Perhaps next language we should have a symbol that identifies keywords, to
save us having to overload already existing keywords. Some kind of prefix
that's illegal to use unless it is prefixing a recognised keyword.
'Chops
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
