Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:16:22 -0700 From: Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++? Message-ID: <444A8106.5010801@hotlz.com> In-Reply-To: <86vet1o5j3.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> <444A6B54.1030902@hotlz.com> <86vet1o5j3.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> writes: > > >>Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> writes: >> >> >>>Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> writes: >>> >>> >>>>The fact is that all your c code will compile in c++ >>>> >>>> >>>That is wrong. To name just one example, C++ is much stricter about >>>type casts than C is. >>> >>> >>I mean the constructs. Casting will not change the functionality or >>shouldn't. >> >> > >It does. Casting can be (and often is) used to force or avoid sign >promotion in function arguments; for instance, isspace(ch) may produce >incorrect results if ch is a char, so a cast to int is required. > >C allows any expression of pointer type to be assigned to a void *, >and allows any expression of type void * to be assigned to any object >pointer type. C++ does not. As a result, a typical C program which >uses malloc() without casting the result will not compile cleanly with >a C++ compiler. A competent C programmer will balk at adding the cast >that C++ requires; a competent C++ programmer will correctly point out >that a C++ program should not use malloc() anyway. > >There are other incompatiblities: const has different semantics in C >and C++, namespaces aren't quite the same (there is no separation >between the typedef namespace and the struct namespace in C++), etc. > >DES > > And how does that change my point? Don 8)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?444A8106.5010801>