From 4731778453370540974
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e94695845965b249
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-12-12 12:31:49 PST
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
Message-ID: <24400@alice.att.com>
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:11:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24400
References: <9234601.10277@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Dec11.231131.10956@microsoft.com> <24392@alice.att.com> <1992Dec12.162211.5076@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 24

In article <1992Dec12.162211.5076@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:

> Andrew,
> Would any of these be likely to be accepted by the committee?

It's hard for me to say -- I am in the Core working group, which
meets concurrently with the Extensions group.  Since the latter would
consider any such proposal, and since I don't really know the dynamics
of that group, I'm ill-placed to comment.

> Do you personally favour nested functions?

In general, yes.  For C++, I'm not sure.

> If not, why not?

The main argument against it is that C doesn't have them, which means
that having them in C++ would make C interoperability more difficult.
It would also be more difficult to interface C++ programs with
low-level assembly-language things like on-board controllers.  I don't
care about that personally, but I know that other people do.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com