From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10951 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 16:21:59 -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 10944 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 16:21:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monkey.daikokuya.co.uk) (213.152.55.49) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 16:21:58 -0000 Received: from neil by monkey.daikokuya.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18Ur3Q-0001HC-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:21:44 +0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:25:00 -0000 From: Neil Booth To: Andrew Haley Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++ "with" keyword Message-ID: <20030104162144.GA4897@daikokuya.co.uk> References: <20030104142915.3BD6EF2DF9@nile.gnat.com> <87el7tneoh.fsf@merlin.maxx.bg> <15894.64524.464371.216489@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15894.64524.464371.216489@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00139.txt.bz2 Andrew Haley wrote:- > Momchil Velikov writes: > > >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar writes: > > > > Robert> If you think "with" is valuable, then the task is to > > Robert> convince the guardians of the C++ standard of this. If > > Robert> you can't convince the > > > > Not related to this particular "with" discussion, but I couldn't > > disagree more. A standards body should not invent language > > "features", but rather codify existing (proven) extensions. > > I totally agree. A standards should not invent language features, or > -- heaven forbid -- programming languages. The reason for this is > pretty obvious, in that once a feature is standardized it's too late > to remove it if it has some fatal flaw. > > See Algol 68 for what happens if you do it the other way... Or C++ 8-) Neil.