C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 Goto page 1, 2  Next          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Dave Guest Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:08 am    Post subject: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 Hello all, A very interesting point was raised over on comp.lang.c++. One poster pointed out that C++ was designed for backward compatibility with C, but then C moved on (to C99)! The point was then raised by another poster that it is apparently a matter of current debate in / between the two languages' standardization committees as to whether the two languages will be reconciled as part of the current C++0X effort. I am very curious about this, so I thought I'd throw this out to the standardization committee members who monitor this group to see what the current state of affairs is on this topic. Thanks! (And, while I'm at it, thanks for an awesome language!) Best regards, Dave --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Beman Dawes Guest Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 [email]better_cs_now (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] ("Dave") wrote in message news:<vpc3qu3c0divd4 (AT) news (DOT) supernews.com>... Quote: Hello all, A very interesting point was raised over on comp.lang.c++. One poster pointed out that C++ was designed for backward compatibility with C, but then C moved on (to C99)! The point was then raised by another poster that it is apparently a matter of current debate in / between the two languages' standardization committees as to whether the two languages will be reconciled as part of the current C++0X effort. I am very curious about this, so I thought I'd throw this out to the standardization committee members who monitor this group to see what the current state of affairs is on this topic. Work is ongoing. As far as the Standard Library is concerned, you might want to see http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1503.txt. The Standards Committee's Library Working Group (LWG) will discuss this proposal next week in Kona, Hawaii. Since this proposal was written at the specific request of the LWG, it will probably be well received. --Beman --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top P.J. Plauger Guest Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 ""Dave"" <better_cs_now (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote Quote: A very interesting point was raised over on comp.lang.c++. One poster pointed out that C++ was designed for backward compatibility with C, but then C moved on (to C99)! The point was then raised by another poster that it is apparently a matter of current debate in / between the two languages' standardization committees as to whether the two languages will be reconciled as part of the current C++0X effort. I am very curious about this, so I thought I'd throw this out to the standardization committee members who monitor this group to see what the current state of affairs is on this topic. Dinkumware has long since reconciled the C++ and C99 *libraries*. We have produced a proposal to add these reconciliations as part of the (non-normative) library technical report (a.k.a. TR1) currently being developed. By the end of the C++ standards meeting next week, we should know more about whether this proposal is acceptable to the committee. On the language side the problems are more diverse. Adding variable length arrays, for example, causes real problems. Even adding restrict raises serious issues with the overloading rules. I leave it to others to speculate about the prospect of C++ adopting any C99 language changes. P.J. Plauger Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top James Kuyper Guest Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 [email]better_cs_now (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] ("Dave") wrote in message news:<vpc3qu3c0divd4 (AT) news (DOT) supernews.com>... Quote: Hello all, A very interesting point was raised over on comp.lang.c++. One poster pointed out that C++ was designed for backward compatibility with C, but then C moved on (to C99)! The point was then raised by another poster that it is apparently a matter of current debate in / between the two languages' standardization committees as to whether the two languages will be reconciled as part of the current C++0X effort. I am very curious about this, so I thought I'd throw this out to the standardization committee members who monitor this group to see what the current state of affairs is on this topic. The overall plan is for C++ and C99 to continue evolving in seperate directions. Both committees have made it a priority (among many other, conflicting, priorities) to minimize incompatibilities between the two languages, unless there's a good reason.. However, incompatibilities for which there are good reasons are already numerous, and you should expect to see more in the future. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Edward Diener Guest Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:22 am    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 "Dave" wrote: Quote: Hello all, A very interesting point was raised over on comp.lang.c++. One poster pointed out that C++ was designed for backward compatibility with C, but then C moved on (to C99)! The point was then raised by another poster that it is apparently a matter of current debate in / between the two languages' standardization committees as to whether the two languages will be reconciled as part of the current C++0X effort. I am very curious about this, so I thought I'd throw this out to the standardization committee members who monitor this group to see what the current state of affairs is on this topic. I have nothing to do with the standardization committee but I would very much like to see C++ move on in the future and throw off many of the C-like trappings in order to become a more regular, more orthogonal, and easier to use language. Continued support of a number of retrograde syntax elements, which are part of C++'s C language roots, should be dropped and/or transformed into modern idioms as C++ evolves into its own language. Attempting to forever reconcile two different languages, despite the fact that both have a common root, is a mistake. Computer languages, like human languages, need to change for the better when a positive change is being made, and C++ needs to consider its future as a dynamic language and not its past as a fairly static procedural language. I hope the members of the C++ standards committee have the courage and foresight to move C++ into the future in these regards. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Helmut Zeisel Guest Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 [email]kuyper (AT) wizard (DOT) net[/email] (James Kuyper) wrote in message news:<8b42afac.0310221040.6b78eb46 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... Quote: However, incompatibilities for which there are good reasons are already numerous, Can you give please give some examples for "good reasons"? Are there good reasons that inline, bool, or clog are used differently in both languages? Quote: and you should expect to see more in the future. These are bad news. If there are good reasons that incompatibilities (i.e., C0x progams that are not valid C++0x programs) will increase, reconciliation does not make sense. Helmut --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Helmut Zeisel Guest Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 [email]eldiener (AT) earthlink (DOT) net[/email] ("Edward Diener") wrote in message news:<vzHlb.14538$Uz6.8529 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.atl.earthlink.net>... Quote: I would very much like to see C++ move on in the future and throw off many of the C-like trappings in order to become a more regular, more orthogonal, and easier to use language. Yes, but wouldn't C++ be "more regular and easier to use" when the meaning of C elements is the same in both C and C++? Quote: Continued support of a number of retrograde syntax elements, which are part of C++'s C language roots, should be dropped and/or transformed into modern idioms as C++ evolves into its own language. For example? Quote: Attempting to forever reconcile two different languages, despite the fact that both have a common root, is a mistake. Computer languages, like human languages, need to change for the better when a positive change is being made, and C++ needs to consider its future as a dynamic language and not its past as a fairly static procedural language. As I understand, the "roadmap" for future evolution of C++ is to incorporate major changes in the library only; the core language is not supposed to change much in the future. Library additions usually do not interfere much with C compatibilty. Helmut --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top P.J. Plauger Guest Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 "Helmut Zeisel" <zei2003b (AT) liwest (DOT) at> wrote Quote: kuyper (AT) wizard (DOT) net (James Kuyper) wrote in message news:<8b42afac.0310221040.6b78eb46 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>... However, incompatibilities for which there are good reasons are already numerous, Can you give please give some examples for "good reasons"? Are there good reasons that inline, bool, or clog are used differently in both languages? inline, yes. bool, sorta yes but I don't think they're incompatible. clog, a botch, but luckily not as bad as it looks. P.J. Plauger Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Gabriel Dos Reis Guest Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 [email]zei2003b (AT) liwest (DOT) at[/email] (Helmut Zeisel) writes: Quote: eldiener (AT) earthlink (DOT) net ("Edward Diener") wrote in message news:<vzHlb.14538$Uz6.8529 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.atl.earthlink.net>... I would very much like to see C++ move on in the future and throw off many of the C-like trappings in order to become a more regular, more orthogonal, and easier to use language. Yes, but wouldn't C++ be "more regular and easier to use" when the meaning of C elements is the same in both C and C++? That would be true if the C "meanings of C elements" were regular and easier to use. For example, I doubt the validity of temporary objects of class-type is easier to use in C++. I would say the same for variably modified types. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top DrPizza Guest Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:28 am    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 ""Dave"" <better_cs_now (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Hello all, A very interesting point was raised over on comp.lang.c++. One poster pointed out that C++ was designed for backward compatibility with C, but then C moved on (to C99)! The point was then raised by another poster that it is apparently a matter of current debate in / between the two languages' standardization committees as to whether the two languages will be reconciled as part of the current C++0X effort. I am very curious about this, so I thought I'd throw this out to the standardization committee members who monitor this group to see what the current state of affairs is on this topic. Thanks! (And, while I'm at it, thanks for an awesome language!) In general it's a stupid idea devoid of merit; the C group won't fix problems with their language to bring it in line with C++, because there's no point -- if they wanted C++ they'd just use C++. The only way any reconciliation can occur is if C++ breaks itself to match what C allows. The purpose of this is unclear. C++ is a well-established language in its own right. It no longer has any need to depend on C for its market penetration. The reverse is true. C cruft (including large numbers of people writing effectively C in C++) is hurting the language. Stupidities like int* pInt, thisIsNotAPointer; // the whole declarator nonsense is a PITA. * should be a type constructor and vector<char> iMeantToDefaultInitializeButInsteadIDeclaredAFunction(); are there principally because of C and serve only to make the language more annoying to use. Why, for instance, should C++ gain clog? C++ has overloading (well, C99 does kinda too with its "generic" crud, but for some unfathomable (to me) reason it doesn't use it here). It doesn't need to call a complex logarithm function clog, because it can -- and does -- just call it log. There's no utility to providing clog in C++ -- the only people who'd use clog are people writing C99 and, guess what? They don't care about C++. If they did, they wouldn't be writing C99. Any changes made to C++ that bring it closer to C99 should be done coincidentally -- for example, some kind of indication that pointers don't alias one would probably be useful. Not because C99 added restrict, but because the utility of such a thing seems fairly clear, and some problem domains would benefit greatly from it. What the WG should do is to say "nuts to C compatibility" and make breaking changes in the language to make it a better language. Breaking changes aren't that big a deal -- compiler vendors will just provide dual-mode compilers, like they do already, to pick between C89 and C99. The issue can be easily overcome. They should be doing things like making int* a, b; declare two pointers to int, not a pointer to int and an int; function declarations should be changed so that, amongst other things, the most vexing parse no longer occurs. Clean up the C legacy cruft, but retain the important parts of C++ -- "don't pay for what you don't use" and reasonable support for different programming paradigms. -- Now Playing: Tunnel Trance Force Vol.26 CD1 - Green Grass Mix (D I G I T A L L Y - I M P O R T E D - European Trance, Techno, Hi-NRG... we can't define it!) --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Edward Diener Guest Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:12 am    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 Helmut Zeisel wrote: Quote: eldiener (AT) earthlink (DOT) net ("Edward Diener") wrote in message news:<vzHlb.14538$Uz6.8529 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.atl.earthlink.net>... I would very much like to see C++ move on in the future and throw off many of the C-like trappings in order to become a more regular, more orthogonal, and easier to use language. Yes, but wouldn't C++ be "more regular and easier to use" when the meaning of C elements is the same in both C and C++? No. Regularity and ease of use does not mean, IMHO, conformance to older constructs and standards. Quote: Continued support of a number of retrograde syntax elements, which are part of C++'s C language roots, should be dropped and/or transformed into modern idioms as C++ evolves into its own language. For example? 1) C style casts, ie. (sometype)someVariable or sometype(someVariable) 2) Use of void to declare a function with no arguments 3) Numerous C isms which are still around for backward compatibility but which inhibit clearer parsing of language constructs. When some syntax element which supports C has a much better C++ equivalent, still exists for the sole purpose of supporting older C code, and no longer fits well with more modern C++ constructs, I would like to see it deprecated and then removed from the language. This will clear out space for better parsing and understanding of the language, and allow clearer and better designed language elements to be added in the future. By carrying around 30 years of C language syntax, C++ has been weighed down and can not make easy language changes which would improve usage. Often someone will ask, why does some feature still exist when we have better ways to do things now. The patient explanation will be that it is done for backward compatibility for C++'s C language roots. It is time to consider removing these backward compatibility situations when better syntax exist, and clearing the language of this debris so that it can grow in the future. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top DrPizza Guest Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:15 am    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 "Helmut Zeisel" <zei2003b (AT) liwest (DOT) at> wrote Quote: eldiener (AT) earthlink (DOT) net ("Edward Diener") wrote in message news:<vzHlb.14538$Uz6.8529 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.atl.earthlink.net>... Yes, but wouldn't C++ be "more regular and easier to use" when the meaning of C elements is the same in both C and C++? No, it wouldn't. The reason being that C is so horrible to use. C++ inherits a great deal of that horridness, and there's no longer any good reason to do so. A process of excision should begin. Quote: Continued support of a number of retrograde syntax elements, which are part of C++'s C language roots, should be dropped and/or transformed into modern idioms as C++ evolves into its own language. For example? int* thisIsAPointer, butThisIsNot; std::vector<char> thisIsNotADefaultConstructedObject(); std::vector<char> andThisIsNotRangeConstructed(istreambuf_iterator<char>(myFile), istreambuf_iterator()); class forwardDeclared; int squareBracketsArePostfix[]; int* butStarsArePrefix; std::string thisLooksLikeAssignmentButIsReallyInitialization = "Hello"; int butIAnnoyinglyMustUseAssignmentForAggregateInitialization[] = {1, 2, 3}; const char* theseAre; char const* theSame; Quote: As I understand, the "roadmap" for future evolution of C++ is to incorporate major changes in the library only; the core language is not supposed to change much in the future. Library additions usually do not interfere much with C compatibilty. More's the pity. -- Now Playing: 10-Freebase - Broken (D I G I T A L L Y - I M P O R T E D - European Trance, Techno, Hi-NRG... we can't define it!) --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Helmut Zeisel Guest Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 [email]pjp (AT) dinkumware (DOT) com[/email] ("P.J. Plauger") wrote in message news:<X3plb.26766$Ee6.16442 (AT) nwrddc01 (DOT) gnilink.net>... Quote: On the language side the problems are more diverse. Adding variable length arrays, for example, causes real problems. What excatly are the problems? AFAIK, problems are only for types with destructor, so a solution might be that C++ allows VLA for PODs only. Am I missing something? Helmut --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Helmut Zeisel Guest Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 [email]pjp (AT) dinkumware (DOT) com[/email] ("P.J. Plauger") wrote in message news:<sJXlb.58285$mp1.11139 (AT) nwrddc02 (DOT) gnilink.net>... Quote: "Helmut Zeisel" <zei2003b (AT) liwest (DOT) at> wrote in message Are there good reasons that inline, bool, or clog are used differently in both languages? inline, yes. bool, sorta yes but I don't think they're incompatible. clog, a botch, but luckily not as bad as it looks. What do you mean by "yes"? That they are used differently, or that there are good reasons to use them differently? Helmut --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top P.J. Plauger Guest Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Reconciliation of C++0X and C99 "Helmut Zeisel" <zei2003b (AT) liwest (DOT) at> wrote Quote: pjp (AT) dinkumware (DOT) com ("P.J. Plauger") wrote in message news:<sJXlb.58285$mp1.11139 (AT) nwrddc02 (DOT) gnilink.net>... "Helmut Zeisel" <zei2003b (AT) liwest (DOT) at> wrote in message Are there good reasons that inline, bool, or clog are used differently in both languages? inline, yes. bool, sorta yes but I don't think they're incompatible. clog, a botch, but luckily not as bad as it looks. What do you mean by "yes"? That they are used differently, or that there are good reasons to use them differently? A little bit of both. P.J. Plauger Dinkumware, Ltd. http://www.dinkumware.com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  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 Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.