Re: bitwise comparators

[dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)]

[It would be easier if you kept lines below 75-80 characters.
Thanks.]
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:23:18 +0100, Alexander Van Hecke <alexke@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> C has access control? Where?
>
>the items you put in a struct are default public. 
>private is a C keyword though.  It
>is perfectly possible to hide some data items.

No, private is not a ISO C89 keyword. My books don't
mention it, and gcc (an ISO C compiler) gives a parse
error for struct bob {private: int a;}; it gives no
error for struct bob {int private;};, which it should
if private is a reserved word. I think you've been
confused by a bad C/C++ compiler.

>but I'd say it's the ability of a language to be _able_ to program
>everything you want to, _even if the language was not designed to solve 
>the problem you're trying to solve_!  In this way Prolog is a very 
>powerful language for AI programs, but it's really poor when it comes to,
>let's say, string manipulation.

That's a bad definition. Computing theory says the problems you can solve
with Bourne shell scripts is exactly equal to the problems you can solve
in C or Prolog or Intercal or an assembly language with one instruction
(decrement and jump if zero.)

>I know with certainty that the first couple of versions of the GNU C++ 
>compiler, which is by the way a very respected and widespread compiler, 
>did just that : converting C++ to C and then compiling this code with 
>the usual gcc compiler. 

No. cfront (an early C++ compiler by Stroustroup) did that, but the GNU
C++ compiler has always been a native compiler.

>I rephrase : 'any C++ code can be translated 
>to C code'.
Any C++ code can be translated to Lisp or Ada, too. But you said it could
be done easily, which is the contestable point.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe; 
if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
   -- Friedrich Nietzsche