In article <316rpp$r5b@thecourier.cims.nyu.edu> osinski@cs.nyu.edu writes:
|I've spent a lotof time thinking about adding wangles to C++ (at least an Hour
|or two) and I agree that it would be a neat feature.

Yes, except you've forgotten the rule that says you have to agree to
remove one committee member for each new feature you propose.  If
this rule is consistently followed, then pretty soon the language will
stabilize.

In article <316rpp$r5b@thecourier.cims.nyu.edu> osinski@cs.nyu.edu writes:
>In article <rfgCtL88H.JDJ@netcom.com>, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>|> Yes folks, that's right.  Just get five of your friends together and
>|> have them all make posting here saying that ``WE INSIST THAT LEFT-
>|> HANDED WANGLES ARE CRUCIAL TO THE FUTURE OF C++, AND THAT THEY OUGHT
>|> TO BE ADDED TO THE LANGUAGE IMMEDIATELY.''  That's really all you
>|> need to do to convince Mr. Haggerty, that left-handed wangles are the
>|> greatest thing since sliced bread.  Don't even bother with little
>|> details (like prior implementation experience and/or proper inte-
>|> greation with the rest of the EXITING language).  Step right up
>|> and demand your own left-handed wangle in the language today!
>
>I've spent a lotof time thinking about adding wangles to C++ (at least an Hour
>or two) and I agree that it would be a neat feature.  But wouldn't it be more
>artagonol (no, wait... argothonal, orthagonal, orthogonal, yeah, that's it --
>orthogonal) to allow both left-handed *and* right-handed wangles?  Or are
>right-handed wangles already in C++?  The index of my copy of the ARM doesn't
>even mention them! :-(
>
>IMHO, these wangle things would make C++ like more OBJECT ORIENTED and cool
>stuff like that.  Also, it's obvious that they would be really easy to
>implement.

Yea Ed.  I think you've got the spirit now!  And you're absolutely right.
We need *both* left-handed *and* right-handed wangles!  As a matter of
fact I'll just die if I don't have them both.  Or... or... or... or maybe
I'll go off and use COBOL instead!  Yea.  That's right.  That's the ticket.
(Threatening to go back and use COBOL should be enough to frighten the
committee into putting left & right handed wangles into C++ right away.
I mean after all, it would be such a terrible tragedy if anyone ever had
to use any other language ever again.  I mean if even one programmer ever
uses another language, then C++ must be a complete failure, right?)

Oh yea.  And Ed, don't forget that having wangles will let us use semi-
colons instead of commas in lots of places.  That would be really a big
win, especially for the numerical programming community.  (You *know*
those commas really hurt their eyes... almost as much as having to look
at something like `array(i,j,k)' rather than `array[i,j,k]'.)

>(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-) )

Neither could I.

> Ed Osinski                  |
> Computer Science Department |   C++: Can't live with it,
> New York University         |        Can't live without it.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

C++:  Can't live with it; Can't kill it.

:-)

--

-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting -------------------
---- domain addr: rfg@netcom.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ----
---- uucp addr: ...!uunet!netcom!rfg ------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -

>>>>> "J" == Jim Adcock <jimad@microsoft.com> writes:

J> Yes, except you've forgotten the rule that says you have to agree
J> to remove one committee member for each new feature you propose.

I fear Jim Adcock is somewhat impricise.  The pertinent ANSI X3 or
ISO/IEC JTC1 documents (have forgottent the document numbers) call for
the removal of

 i) X3 committee member, or
 ii) ex-officio X3 representative, or
 iii) other person associated with the standardization
  procedure.

I think we should generously extend iii) to include every poster on
comp.std.c++.  I wholeheartedly agree that I should be among the first
to go, as I qualify under two categories.

      -- Dag Bruck

In article <rfgCtL88H.JDJ@netcom.com>, rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
|> Yes folks, that's right.  Just get five of your friends together and
|> have them all make posting here saying that ``WE INSIST THAT LEFT-
|> HANDED WANGLES ARE CRUCIAL TO THE FUTURE OF C++, AND THAT THEY OUGHT
|> TO BE ADDED TO THE LANGUAGE IMMEDIATELY.''  That's really all you
|> need to do to convince Mr. Haggerty, that left-handed wangles are the
|> greatest thing since sliced bread.  Don't even bother with little
|> details (like prior implementation experience and/or proper inte-
|> greation with the rest of the EXITING language).  Step right up
|> and demand your own left-handed wangle in the language today!

I've spent a lotof time thinking about adding wangles to C++ (at least an Hour
or two) and I agree that it would be a neat feature.  But wouldn't it be more
artagonol (no, wait... argothonal, orthagonal, orthogonal, yeah, that's it --
orthogonal) to allow both left-handed *and* right-handed wangles?  Or are
right-handed wangles already in C++?  The index of my copy of the ARM doesn't
even mention them! :-(

IMHO, these wangle things would make C++ like more OBJECT ORIENTED and cool
stuff like that.  Also, it's obvious that they would be really easy to
implement.

Anyway, another problem with C++ is that there are way tooo many features.  (I
mean, there are like dozens!)  Some of them are not really necessary (and
really should be removed to make room for the resources that wangles would
require).  Like "virtual", which has no effect on a function that I can see,
except to make up a so called Virtual Table and have them run slower.

I could go on (and on), but I think I've made my point.


(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-) )

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ed Osinski                  |
 Computer Science Department |   C++: Can't live with it,
 New York University         |        Can't live without it.
 E-mail:  osinski@cs.nyu.edu |
---------------------------------------------------------------------