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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <c89c5580-23b8-43af-b150-e4c96d0ce57e@o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <104cfd9f-dbf5-4f05-9c4a-a2319dd371a9@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.WNT.2.00.1102161829430.1328@WHIRLWIND>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.187.177
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297913746 20100 127.0.0.1 (17 Feb 2011 03:35:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:35:46 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.187.177;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13)
 Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17323
Date: 2011-02-16T19:35:46-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 16, 3:35=A0pm, "Peter C. Chapin" <PCha...@vtc.vsc.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > It sounds like a complaint that C++ requires source inclusion (directly=
 or
> > via preprocessor #include directives) of type and object declarations i=
nto
> > a compilation unit, while other languages have syntax for requesting a
> > type set (class, package, etc.) whose definition is then sought out by =
the
> > compiler in an implementation-dependent way. Personally, I don't find t=
he
> > long strings of 'import ...;' or 'with ...; use ...;' statements any mo=
re
> > appealing than '#include "header.h"', but I suppose it's "purer".
>
> C++'s model of #include is a major project because the compiler does not
> really know what is going on and the preprocessor can do arbitrary editin=
g
> of source code. For example
>
> #include <someheader.h>
> #include <someotherheader.h>
>
> A macro defined in someheader.h might change the meaning of the declarati=
ons
> in someotherheader.h. I've had this happen to me many times... in headers
> that I did not write and over which I have no control. Often the problem =
can
> be fixed by rearranging the order of #includes or by selectively #undef
> certain macros. However, it's a problem that just shouldn't exist.
>
> Peter

Also, one can use precisely that behavior to crash the pre-processor:
//Test.h
#include <test.h>