On Apr 25, 12:47 pm, "Moschops" <mosch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> 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
Which is again would be a keyword? I would hate to implement such
grammar :)
--
Nikolai
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
