 |
C++Talk.NET
C++ language newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Francis Glassborow
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject: patenting 'is not' operator |
 |
|
Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become good citizens
I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages. But
exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or can be
used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
--
Francis Glassborow ACCU
Author of 'You Can Do It!' see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit
For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jean-Marc Bourguet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
Francis Glassborow <francis (AT) robinton (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes:
| Quote: | Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become
good citizens I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT
operator (to avoid the inconvenience of using the prior
art of NOT( IS ) ).
|
I count access your URL so don't know what is patented, but
I know of possible prior arts.
Ada95 has an "in" operator and an "not in" operator used to
test if a value was in a class. The C++ equivalent of
V not in C'class
is something like
dynamic_cast<C*>(&V) == 0
This is probably the patented idea.
Algol 68 has an isn't operator. But as far as I remember,
the C++ equivalent of
r1 ISNT r2
would be more like doing
&r1 != &r2
where r1 and r2 are two references. Probably not was
patented, but the name ISNT has already been used as operator.
VHDL has "nand", "nor" and "xnor" operators, showing that
the idea of using negated operators instead of negating the
result has already been used quite systematically. I don't
have the VHDL standard here, but I seems to remember that
every operator having a boolean result has a negated
version.
Yours,
--
Jean-Marc
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Balog Pal
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:50 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
"Francis Glassborow" <francis (AT) robinton (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: | in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
|
And I want to patent the algorithm for breathing (as 1: take a breath in,
then 2: breath out, then repeat from 1).
If patents for such things are actually granted it's probably not
Microsoft's fault but the patent office's or more deeply rooted in the law
system.
| Quote: | Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages. But
exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or can be
used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
|
In a SQL statement you can say 'is not null'. If that is also considered
BASIC-like (why not), can someone get a patent on stuff commonly used for a
long time where the only innovative move is the patent-application itself?
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:52 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
"Francis Glassborow" <francis (AT) robinton (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: |
Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become good citizens
I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages. But
exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or can be
used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
|
The "isnot" operator was proposed for the D Programming Language as a
replacement for the !== operator already in use in D. The !== operator
determines if two references are at the same address or not. Both the
"isnot" reference and the !== operator well predate the patent application.
isnot proposal:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/810.html
earlier D specification using !== operator:
http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8254/cuj1055186243774/d.pdf
-Walter
www.digitalmars.com C, C++ and D compilers
"code of the nerds"
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan Vecerina
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:40 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
"Walter" <walter (AT) digitalmars (DOT) nospamm.com> wrote
| Quote: | in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages. But
exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or can be
used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
C and C++ will not be affected anyway, unless a new feature |
is somehow related to the patent.
| Quote: | The "isnot" operator was proposed for the D Programming Language as a
replacement for the !== operator already in use in D. The !== operator
determines if two references are at the same address or not. Both the
"isnot" reference and the !== operator well predate the patent
application. |
Do they both predate? The patent was filed on May 15 '03, and this is
the date that matters (not the Nov 18, '04 at the top of the page).
But I like the suggestion to use "aint" instead of "isnot" ;)
as long as you can show that it had been *published* then.
This could at least void claim 1 of the patent -- but I guess
that subsequent claims would still have to be fought as
'obvious' extensions of claim 1. [ Disclaimer: IANA(P)L. ]
The problem with these patents is that a victim is
never confronted with a single patent to fight agaist.
A bunch of suits visit you and threaten you with a first
small set of 5 or 10 patents. You go through them, get a
good laugh, and demonstrate that most claims therein have
no merit, and should be easy to fight in court. But then
they lay another few 100s similar patents on the table, and
you realize that you're up to a long & painful battle unless
you find some kind of settlement.
This is the kind of arm-twisting that Microsoft seems
to be getting ready to apply...
Ivan
--
http://ivan.vecerina.com/contact/?subject=NG_POST <- e-mail contact form
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonathan Turkanis
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:41 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
"Francis Glassborow" <francis (AT) robinton (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: |
Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become good citizens
I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
|
Speaking of prior art, the folks at Microsoft might want to look at W.V.O.
Quine's Mathematical Logic from 1940
D11. "(zeta != eta) for "!(zeta == eta)" [p. 137]
D13. "(zeta !in eta) for "!(zeta in eta)" [p. 140]
Presumably they could find something similar in Principia Mathematica ;-)
Jonathan
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Seigh
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
Francis Glassborow wrote:
| Quote: |
Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become good citizens
I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages. But
exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or can be
used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
|
I don't know if the patent would be granted or upheld but if the new operator
was utilized by Visual Basic programmers, it would make automatic translation
of Visual Basic programs into alternative languages a bit awkward since the
patent would prevent translation of the ISNOT operator. I don't know if that's
Microsoft's intent but it would fit into their strategy of incorporating patents
to prevent reverse engineering and retain complete propietary control. If so,
then they're likely to be doing it with C# and Visual C++ also.
Joe Seigh
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van Ingen Schenau
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
Francis Glassborow wrote:
| Quote: |
Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become good
citizens I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages.
But exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or
can be used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of
OO so a patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might
also be stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
|
If the patent examiner considers C or C++ as BASIC-like, then he must be
really stupid to be able to ignore the prior art, dating back to at
least 1978 for C. I am confident that C has had an in-equality operator
for two pointer operands from the very beginning, and that is what
Microsoft is patenting here for BASIC.
However, if the patent examiner chooses to ignore that other languages
have had such an operator for a very long time, there might be a
Microsoft lawyer that starts to argue that C and C++ are BASIC-like.
Bart v Ingen Schenau
--
a.c.l.l.c-c++ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq
c.l.c FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
c.l.c++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
"Ivan Vecerina" <please_use_web_form (AT) ivan (DOT) vecerina.com> wrote
| Quote: | "Walter" <walter (AT) digitalmars (DOT) nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:vfOnd.57837$V41.48417 (AT) attbi_s52 (DOT) ..
"Francis Glassborow" <francis (AT) robinton (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ToQbU3DzienBFwmr (AT) robinton (DOT) demon.co.uk...
Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become good
citizens
I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
NB: this redirect will work too: http://minilien.com/?IdEAAgUWlL
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages.
But
exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or can
be
used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
C and C++ will not be affected anyway, unless a new feature
is somehow related to the patent.
The "isnot" operator was proposed for the D Programming Language as a
replacement for the !== operator already in use in D. The !== operator
determines if two references are at the same address or not. Both the
"isnot" reference and the !== operator well predate the patent
application.
Do they both predate? The patent was filed on May 15 '03, and this is
the date that matters (not the Nov 18, '04 at the top of the page).
isnot proposal:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/810.html
The thread is from May '04.
But I like the suggestion to use "aint" instead of "isnot" ;)
earlier D specification using !== operator:
http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8254/cuj1055186243774/d.pdf
This could be used as prior art as it is dated April '03,
as long as you can show that it had been *published* then.
This could at least void claim 1 of the patent -- but I guess
that subsequent claims would still have to be fought as
'obvious' extensions of claim 1. [ Disclaimer: IANA(P)L. ]
|
Here is where the !== operator first appeared as a suggestion for D on
26-Mar-02:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/4297.html
And when it was adopted 18-Apr-02:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/4707.html
I don't see how changing the spelling of "!==" to "isnot" is a patentable
innovation. Maybe Digital Mars should patent the "aint" operator <g>.
I tried googling for "isnot expression" and found the following reference
http://www.isbe.ch/~amrhein/StudProj/XSL20/doc/expressions.html
to the use of an "isnot" operator "The operators is and isnot test whether
the operands represent the same (identical) node." The page is dated
12-Nov-2002.
-Walter
www.digitalmars.com free C, C++, D compilers
"code of the nerds"
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith H Duggar
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:21 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
Francis Glassborow <francis (AT) robinton (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: |
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
|
There is also the "non-obvious" requirement of patent law. So
even despite the prior use of such operators as !=, !==, etc
combining two keywords for convenience is certainly obvious.
Any examiner granting such a patent is not only stupid but
incompetent as well. It is doubtful the patent would hold
upon challenge. (Well, there are stupid judges as well.) The
saddest thing is the fact that some people actually applied
for this patent in the first place. It reveals their lack of
mental prowess if they think "IS NOT" is non-obvious.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jakacki
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:55 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
Francis Glassborow wrote:
| Quote: | Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become
good citizens I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT
operator (to avoid the inconvenience of using the prior
art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like
languages. But exactly what is one of the latter? C and
C++ are procedural (or can be used as) languages and
Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a patent
examiner stupid enough to grant this application might
also be stupid enough to consider C and C++ as
BASIC-like.
|
Let's act, otherwise they will patent semicolons.
IANAL, so I wonder if there is any procedure of delivering
evidence to USP&TO that proves prior art in a particular
case. If there is, then we should apply it now. Anybody
knows anything on that or can ask a lawyer?
If we don't act now, we may later need to defend ourselves,
as C++ programers, from serious troubles.
BR
Grzegorz
--
Free C++ frontend library: http://opencxx.sourceforge.net
China from the inside: http://www.staryhutong.com
Myself: http://www.dziupla.net/gj/cv
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Kewley
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
Francis Glassborow wrote:
| Quote: | Just when I thought that Microsoft were learning to become good citizens
I find the following insanity:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG0
1&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%
22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
in which Microsoft is asking for a patent on the IS NOT operator (to
avoid the inconvenience of using the prior art of NOT( IS ) ).
Now the patent application refers to BASIC and BASIC-like languages. But
exactly what is one of the latter? C and C++ are procedural (or can be
used as) languages and Visual Basic also supports a degree of OO so a
patent examiner stupid enough to grant this application might also be
stupid enough to consider C and C++ as BASIC-like.
|
There is an "isnt" operator in S-Algol (and PS-Algol) which compares a
pointer and a record type to find out whether the pointer points to
something of that type or not. (S-Algol supported only 1 pointer type,
"pntr").
There is certainly prior art for comparing pointers and conjoining
keyword/operators. I am not certain I see any novelty!
JK
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
velthuijsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
| Quote: | There is also the "non-obvious" requirement of patent law. So
even despite the prior use of such operators as !=, !==, etc
combining two keywords for convenience is certainly obvious.
Any examiner granting such a patent is not only stupid but
incompetent as well.
|
Before I start I'm not a citizen of the USA, nor an employee of any
patent office anywhere in the world. I'm just offering an alternate
view of why this could happen.
There is an other explanation then stupidity and incompetence.
That is if people in the USPTO get their performance reviewed based on
the number of patents they registered since the last review.
Besides reviewing the validity of patents is a revenue generating
branch of the USPTO (If you want a review of a patent you pay, through
the nose).
| Quote: | It is doubtful the patent would hold
upon challenge. (Well, there are stupid judges as well.) The
saddest thing is the fact that some people actually applied
for this patent in the first place. It reveals their lack of
mental prowess if they think "IS NOT" is non-obvious.
|
It is indeed a sad fact that people think they can gain from patenting
this kind of thing. It does not however reveal a lack of mental
prowess. It reveals a good knowledge of how the USPTO works and that
there was more then an even chance it would be accepted.
You are right that the patent will probably not hold up to being
challenged, but how much time would that cost the challenger and how
much financial damage will be done during that time since products
can't be shipped (due to a possible courtorder to stop economic damage
to the patentholder until this mess is sorted out). How much will it
cost in lawyers? How much in other company resources?
How much is it going to cost you if you just fold when this patent
with a few hundred more of it's inane brothers and sisters is dumped
on your business, what will you have to give up to MS to prevent
having to file bankruptcy?
This patent was not registered to keep. It (and a host of others like
it) is registered to harm any small/medium business that tries to
compete with MS.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Birbacher
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:59 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
Hi!
velthuijsen wrote:
| Quote: | This patent was not registered to keep. It (and a host of others like
it) is registered to harm any small/medium business that tries to
compete with MS.
|
Does the patent count outside of USA? Maybe in EU?
Frank
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis Glassborow
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:07 am Post subject: Re: patenting 'is not' operator |
|
|
In article <30pm71F33s4moU1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de>, Frank Birbacher
<bloodymir.crap (AT) gmx (DOT) net> writes
| Quote: | Hi!
velthuijsen wrote:
This patent was not registered to keep. It (and a host of others like
it) is registered to harm any small/medium business that tries to
compete with MS.
Does the patent count outside of USA? Maybe in EU?
|
Not as such, but can you imagine a viable situation in IT where a
programming tool was OK in the EU but not in the US?
I know this is a long way from C++ but the issues raised by attempts to
patent keywords or key programming language concepts directly impact on
every one of us.
As individuals we can do very little, but there are those who can act.
In this case, those responsible for C++ (and, because it is an ISO
Standard language, C#) in MS should be, IMNSHO, be making the strongest
possible internal representations to those responsible for patent
applications such as this one.
People like Herb Sutter have been striving very hard to change people's
views of MS. I am not concerned here with attributing motives to those
concerned (you can be cynical if you like) but the fact is that actions
such as this patent application damage all their work and they should be
very angry (and for all I know, they are but that should be internal to
MS).
People are very good at throwing things at MS, but much of the blame
should, IMO, be laid at the door of the culture of the country that
seems, at least to this outsider, to be one that supports bullying.
Patents are about techniques not about words ('Windows' can be
trademarked but not patented). The technique described in the patent
application in question has been in wide use for many years. It has been
a fundamental part of C++ since its very inception. Even the application
itself describes the proposal in terms of an existing use of the
keywords (of BASIC).
Let me give an example. Suppose that C++ had never had the operator !=
but used !( a == b) instead of a != b. Would the insight that adding !=
as an operator as saving a few keystrokes and making the expression more
transparent be worth a patent? What about
a op= expr;
as a substitute for
a = a op expr;
?
I think that madness lies along this path, and that we should not be
pretending that it is nothing to do with us because the current
application is not directly about C++. Were it to pass it would
establish a precedent.
--
Francis Glassborow ACCU
Author of 'You Can Do It!' see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit
For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
