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

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

Re: Java vs C++

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#25514 — Re: Java vs C++

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#25923

"Joshua Cranmer" <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> wrote in message 
news:iimnil$dh2$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 02/06/2011 11:11 AM, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Thomas Richter" <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message
>> news:iimf47$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.

Like when you call a 9-digit number and the phone tells you that you need to 
dial a 1 first. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web