In article <
XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Daniel James <
XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
In article <d38sms$l$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Greg Comeau wrote:
>[I wrote]
>>I think I read it and forgot about it ... it looks familiar. It's a
>>good article but I don't entirely agree ...
>
>Fair enough. However, which parts of what I said do you
>disagree with?
The conclusion, mostly <smile>.
I had multiple conclusions, and would be surprised to find
disagreement with 100% of all of them.
Quote
If export is hard to implement (and most people who speak on this
with>apparent authority seem to agree that it's not trivial)
It's hard, probably the hardest thing; nobody disgress with that.
Quote
then it has to
bring something significant to the language to be worth having.
Enough people of the committee thought/think that it did/does/can.
Those people were/are intellegent and knowledgeable,
and those people covered/cover many industry cross sections.
The committee did not get everything right, and on some things
got it wrong. And for _most_ things, unexpected surprises did arise.
But if there were/are problems with export, then fixing them
should also be considered, just like the problems in other features
were/are. If there are enhancements possible for export, then they
should be considered via extensions too, just like the extensions
for other features being suggested and proposed. If there are
clean alternatives to export/seperation, they should be
considered too.
Quote
It's not clear to me that export does bring *significant* advantages --
Herb says it doesn't, you seem to be saying otherwise, but I haven't
seen any formal rebuttal of Herb's articles (and if they exist I'm
surprised I haven't) -- and if it doesn't, then is it worth the effort?
Herb has some good points. I think the problem is that they been
oversold potential problems and as being earth shattering scary. Also,
too many of points raised were either not applicable to export at all,
or were/are applicable to every features hence being {*word*226} red herrings.
You're right that I don't think I've seen a rebuttal "in print"
to the article, but there has been hundreds of messages across
the board on it though.
Quote
I do sympathize with the position of those who have actually done the
work already and don't want to see it wasted, but I don't agree that the
fact that that work has been done is in and of itself sufficient reason
to keep export.
It can't be the only reason. But it also can't be a non-reason either.
As with any decision, it involves compromise, understanding, discussion,
etc.
Quote
Early adopters/implementers always take some risk for
their imptuosity (however laudable it may be).
But that didn't happen here. At all. If you've been
informed that there has been impetuousness of an early adopter,
you've been informed incorrectly.
Quote
>Herb and who else?
Herb and others who agreed with him at the time, I don't remember who
but I've read things by and had discussions with people that agree with
the views he espoused -- and I've not seen anyone arguing in print that
he was wrong. Maybe I've missed something, in which case please provide
some references ... ?
As mentioned above, I think you're right that there has been
nothing formally arguing that he was wrong. But google for export.
BTW, I'm not saying the issues are clear but but when are they?
As such, the debate rages on. My argument is not to single out
export. Let's revamp the language instead of putting out fires.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau for the Mac? Stay tuned.
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==>
www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?