In article <1994Jan11.165852.10493@icaen.uiowa.edu> nvkumar@icaen.uiowa.edu (Neel Vasant Kumar) writes:
|I have been reading the thread on the new Bool class for some time.
|Is this the first step towards having a whole plethora of new classes
|which have been represented by types (e.g. int, float, etc) until
|now??  Are we going towards a smalltalkization of C++??

I don't know about that.  But I'd suggest that if we are going to
add new fundamental types to the language, we would be better off
to add complex as a fundamental type, so that C code will continue
to be compilable as C++ code [more or less] even after the proposed
changes to C.  IE it would be better to make C++ a better platform
for numeric work, so that C++, not C, becomes the numeric platform
of choice.

I have been reading the thread on the new Bool class for some time.
Is this the first step towards having a whole plethora of new classes
which have been represented by types (e.g. int, float, etc) until
now??  Are we going towards a smalltalkization of C++??

Inquiring minds want to know.  *grin*

Neel Kumar
nvkumar@icaen.uiowa.edu
--
Neel Kumar
nvkumar@icaen.uiowa.edu

In <1994Jan11.165852.10493@icaen.uiowa.edu> nvkumar@icaen.uiowa.edu (Neel Vasant Kumar) writes:

>I have been reading the thread on the new Bool class for some time.
>Is this the first step towards having a whole plethora of new classes
>which have been represented by types (e.g. int, float, etc) until
>now??  Are we going towards a smalltalkization of C++??

Read again. It's a new bool type, not a new Bool class.

>Inquiring minds want to know.  *grin*