From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24770 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 14:29:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24763 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 14:29:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 14:29:26 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 3BD6EF2DF9; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 09:29:15 -0500 (EST) To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, normanjonas@arcor.de Subject: Re: Re: c++ "with" keyword Message-Id: <20030104142915.3BD6EF2DF9@nile.gnat.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:29:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 > I think you missed the point. The reason for the with keyword is not to use > a pointer but to leave > the long structs name which is not done by your example : My viewpoint here is that gcc should not be used as an arena for implementing random language extensions, no matter how meritorious they be. Yes, we have some useful extensions in C that should certainly be maintained at this stage (e.g. nested procedures), but it is a mistake to go implementing new ones unless there is some very convincing argument, and a simple "gosh, this woul dbe convenient to have" is never convincing enough in this context. If you think "with" is valuable, then the task is to convince the guardians of the C++ standard of this. If you can't convince the C++ community to add the feature, then I think it is a mistake for gcc to second guess.