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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	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-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chuck" <chuckmacdonald@nospam.me>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:16:49 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ijl6d4$scj$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: 
 <104cfd9f-dbf5-4f05-9c4a-a2319dd371a9@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.WNT.2.00.1102161829430.1328@WHIRLWIND>
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:16:52 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="Nvo31E/p3EKlT4bDI5+9FA";
	logging-data="29075"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UfviogUFSauLuoxDFixJC"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uXChc/uEAqEdxhSIUGCBfV4LQ48=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17407
Date: 2011-02-18T01:16:49-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Peter C. Chapin 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 into 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 the long
>> strings of 'import ...;' or 'with ...; use ...;' statements any more
>> 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 editing of source code. For example
>
> #include <someheader.h>
> #include <someotherheader.h>
>
> A macro defined in someheader.h might change the meaning of the
> declarations 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.

So solve it or shut up. I spewed on another channel about the value of 
headers. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'd pay you as a consultant and then find 
out that you raped me for money about common knowledge. Then I would hate 
hate you. (Lest you think I don't have this "problem" solved, I assure 
you it a trivial issue and you should keep your taxicab).