Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25514

Re: Java vs C++

Path csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: Java vs C++
Date Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:59:49 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 26
Message-ID <iimnil$dh2$2@news.eternal-september.org> (permalink)
References <iijbfr$pb2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4d585c$0$81476$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <4d4d60dc$0$23763$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d4d8322$0$41117$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <iil53i$q34$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iil5ed$10m$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iimf47$soo$1@news.belwue.de> <iimh8f$hvv$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Injection-Date Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:59:49 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info mx01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="LtjcJP1H6uHOtkcPMh0bUA"; logging-data="13858"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WlvMCSzcLQNT7prhqhvMB+B3vno9ASVg="
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12pre) Gecko/20101019 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.6pre
In-Reply-To <iimh8f$hvv$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Cancel-Lock sha1:xErjK4ZEZsSPsTTgvXKyljSuuEw=
Xref csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25514

Show key headers only | View raw


On 02/06/2011 11:11 AM, Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>
> "Thomas Richter" <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message
> news:iimf47$soo$1@news.belwue.de...
>>
>> I beg your pardon? C++ allows nested templates since C++99 and before.
>> The only issue here is a notational one, namely that you had to write
>> A<B<C> > (note the space behind B<C>) to avoid >> being parsed as a
>> token (shifting, namely). That is the only thing that got fixed in
>> C++0x, not nesting templates which is part of the language since C++99.
>
> This surprises me. Given all the difficult parsing needed to make sense
> of C++, it seems like this small bit of lexical analysis should never
> have been a sticking point.

When Bjarne Stroustrup gave a talk about C++0x to my university, one of 
the things he said was it took him several tries to get the compiler 
vendors to agree to support that minor lexical analysis. The only way he 
could convince them to do it was to point out that all the major 
compilers basically had an error message in that case which said "add a 
space, idiot", so all they had to do was remove that error message.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | NextNext in thread | Find similar


Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 12:59 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 10:09 -0800

csiph-web