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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cb4b02eafef9cefb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Difference between ADA and c++ Date: 1997/08/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268654851 Distribution: world References: <33FDD17A.320B@virgin.net> <01bcafdf$50784b80$7774d8cc@fatman> <340340C1.72A7@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> <3403A080.2A07@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3403A080.2A07@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" writes: > I still think the potential for misuse is too great. The reason I > equated it with promotions and demotions is that there is the same > potential for problems. Actually, I believe the more appropriate comparison would be with macros - and in particular real macros. Not the sort of simplistic stuff you have in C, but something like CL macros. The potential for _really_ _big_ wins would be there - as well as the potential for completely obscure code that no one can understand what it is. Hmmmm, (somewhat off topic here) it just occured to me that you could probably write the entire C++ template language as an embedded language in CL using macros. Anyone have a reason why that might not be true? In which case, AS's odd claim of a couple months or so ago in c.l.l that only C++ with its templates was capable of expressing the STL loses all meaning (not that it had much to begin with). /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari