From 9045858226032589383 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e8e0ab29e8861265 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:30:14 -0500 Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu From: "Bob Bell" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: If C++ had interfaces, what would they be? Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1122663294.002944.291910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1121963458.661748.118300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1122299887.515239.317170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122336456.595882.282330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <42E60A63.9050409@cs.york.ac.uk> <1122409313.507177.240760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122497839.229429.320980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <_cadnel6Iu4Qx3XfRVn-tA@speakeasy.net> <1122594247.539600.155250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <96udnaThdd8_KXTfRVn-1Q@speakeasy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=160.33.20.11; posting-account=YkQmFgwAAADb4VCQxbKct8M2us8SA5QU X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:28:57 CST Lines: 101 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-ByettkInDiAg38enmazePIMqW5plEi4F8B3txQiBJIxbvy6+3ljMse5ANcMTWA/7WHztleCaV8LGVf1!ogSl2biUqGpfvYHOez0DjqUjxFW0h6A0QbGjVa5acGfocZz2VBJzqOmbvmXX4CKvigAM4j+W9lbU!bxYLPyEknu3n8K/T0PhIsKBK2Ur5/K27sJZA+agTxEE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:1566 Steven T. Hatton wrote: > Bob Bell wrote: > > > "Steven T. Hatton" wrote: > >> Bob Bell wrote: > > > Hmm. I asked about using a web browser to search for information in a > > set of web pages and what that says about C++, but your reply doesn't > > seem to have anything to do with the question. > > The reasoning was implicit. Regardless of the tool, the structure of the > program matters. I don't believe there is any fundamental problem with > using such tools as lxr, Doxygen. If I failed to provide that answer you > wanted, or expected, that is probably because I don't accept the premiss > from which you formulated the question. My premise was that a web browser is an inappropriate tool for searching a C++ code base. Is that the premise you don't accept, or do you mean something else? I've gone back and reread what you wrote on this topic several times now, trying to see if I've missed something. But it looks like you said: -- I used a web browser to examine an SVN repository of C++ code, looking for something -- it was hard -- therefore, there's something wrong with C++ This seems entirely unreasonable to me. I've tried to question you about it to see if that is indeed what you meant, but at this point, I can't tell if you're dissembling or if there really is some misunderstanding on my part. > > Then why did you ask: > > For obvious reasons. If they were obvious reasons, I wouldn't have asked why. Perhaps you should be more explicit instead of expecting me to read your mind. > >> AAMOF, yes, such things are _far_ easier to find and evaluate with, for > >> example, doxygen output. > > > > I didn't ask whether it would be easier to use doxygen to find those > > things; I asked about a web browser. Your complaint was about using a > > web browser to search a code base. I still don't see what the > > deficiencies of using a web browser to search a code base tells us > > about the deficiencies of the preprocessor. > > My observation was about the general nature of finding information. I have > no idea if your tools do what you assert they do. I have no way to find > out. What stops you from getting ahold of the tool and trying it out? > My experience has been that the reality often exceeds the description > when people tell me they have a tool that solves all the problems I > mention. Then I'm afraid I'm not one of those people; I never said I have a tool that solves all the problems you mention. You would be justified in your skepticism if I had. This whole subthread started because I disagreed with your claim that a C++ source base cannot be searched deterministically or effectively. I pointed out at least one tool that does quite a good job at it. (Note: not a perfect job, and not a job that solves all of your problems.) If you don't want to accept that, there's nothing I can do about it. Your points about the preprocessor are taken, but don't really invalidate my point. If you think they do, perhaps you have misunderstood what I'm saying. There's nothing that stops the compiler (including the preprocessor) from emitting any data it wants that describes which definitions of what programming entities are used where. The Metrowerks IDE does this. That means that after a compile I can do things like right-click on the name of a class, function, or macro and be taken to the corresponding definition. You can have multiple targets, each with a different set of predefined macro definitions implying totally different conditional compilation branches. And in each target, right-clicking on the name of something takes me to the right place, taking into account all of the conditional compilation of that branch. All of this can be done today with the existing language definition; Metrowerks (and others) has done these kinds of things for years. If you still think that changing the language is a better approach, consider that a new version of the standard isn't likely for 4 or 5 years. Assuming you succeed in getting everything you think C++ needs into the standard, how many more years after that do you think you'll have to wait before seeing it all implemented? Bob --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]