jrobie@netmbx.netmbx.de (Jonathan Robie) writes:

>...there seems to be a lot of reluctance to add new
>keywords to the language.  The argument is that they break existing code.

Does this mean that when we are designing "D" (the start-from-scratch
no-backwards-compatibility successor to C++) that we should prefix all the
keywords with $ or some similar special character, to avoid name
clashes? Or would this be just to horrible to contemplate?

The reluctance to add keywords to the language has lead to many rather ugly
constructs like "=0" for pure virtual functions, and confusing overloading of
keywords (like Gnu C's "volatile" return type for a function which doesn't
return).

--
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU
This .signature VIRUS is a self-referential statement that is true - but
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!