From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Vassili Bykov" <vbykov@cam.org>
Subject: Re: Exceptions as objects (was Re: What is wrong with OO ?)
Date: 1997/02/07
Message-ID: <01bc1539$f98b33e0$752d54c7@vbykov.hip.cam.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 215168030
references: <5acjtn$5uj@news3.digex.net> <E3I8GL.AuH@research.att.com>
 <32dd9fc8.262114963@news.sprynet.com> <yf3sp3y9ur6.fsf@sabi.demon.co.uk>
 <E49vLo.AzB@ecf.toronto.edu> <yf3lo9iqzhz.fsf@sabi.demon.co.uk>
 <5cu43v$jkn@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> <5d93d3$nhs$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <5dds5b$gcs@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <01bc14ab$3ce476e0$752d54c7@vbykov.hip.cam.org>
 <5def36$rjd@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <01bc1513$e030fcc0$752d54c7@vbykov.hip.cam.org> <32FB70AB.33C0@iconcomp.com>
organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Date: 1997-02-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bill Gooch <bill@iconcomp.com> wrote:
> Vassili Bykov wrote:
> > I didn't mean to be dense--I said that only because if we extend the
> > meaning of "standard library" to include standard macros always known
to
> > the compiler then what is the difference between "part of the library"
and
> > "part of the language"?
> 
> Why should there be such a difference in practice, 
> regardless of the nature of the extension?

I don't say there should be.  I was referring to the part of the original
Fergus Henderson's <fjh@murlibobo.cs.mu.OZ.AU> message:

> Actually I'd be quite happy with a language in which while loops
> were part of the standard library, rather than part of the language.