From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25597 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2004 03:48:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25588 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2004 03:48:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Oct 2004 03:48:41 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (a17-128-100-204.apple.com [17.128.100.204]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9Q3rmjp022584 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:48:40 -0700 Received: from [17.219.205.161] ([17.219.205.161]) by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9Q3mZ2t018083; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:48:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <417DA274.9060805@coyotegulch.com> References: <42A6DEB0-26D4-11D9-9558-000D9330C50E@apple.com> <8354E669-26DE-11D9-B761-000D9330C50E@apple.com> <417D8F67.5070105@coyotegulch.com> <5CE57982-26E1-11D9-B761-000D9330C50E@apple.com> <417DA274.9060805@coyotegulch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ziemowit Laski , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "Joseph S. Myers" From: Matt Austern Subject: Unified C and C++ front end (was Re: New C parser [patch]) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:08:00 -0000 To: Scott Robert Ladd X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg02157.txt.bz2 On Oct 25, 2004, at 6:03 PM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Ziemowit Laski wrote: >> So I take it there is no hope of the divergence being halted (let >> alone reversed)? Or am I the only one who sees this divergence as an >> aberration? :-) > > I haven't looked in on the debate for many months, but it boils down > to the C++ people feeling that C99 was unnecessarily incompatible, and > the C folk stating that they had no obligation to remain compatible > with C++. Many of the differences are subtle, and some difficult to > resolve in a common fashion. > > I highly recommend David Tribble's excellent synopsis of the > differences at: > > http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm Another useful summary, "written in support of the view that C/C++incompatibilities can and should be eliminated," is the following series of articles: http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8011/cuj0207stroustr/ http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8010/cuj0208stroustr/ http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8009/cuj0209stroustr/ --Matt