From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60603012027q5ca36676qe25c6fdafd5cb0b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 2006 20:27:57 -0800
From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....
In-Reply-To: <fcb1fb436756a878833fc14876365542@9netics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <512d50b944dded9e4273ce3d066f52b7@swtch.com>
	<fcb1fb436756a878833fc14876365542@9netics.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0969d736-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 3/1/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> >> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
> >> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
> >> i like a behavior like this:
> >>
> >>      { int i; for (i =3D 0, ...) ...; }
> >
> > so did the c++ standards committee and the c99 committee.
> > both have declared that
> >
> >       for (int i =3D 0; i < 10; i++);
> >
> > now means
> >
> >       { int i; for(i=3D0; i<10; i++); }
>
> i didn't know. wow?!
> my vc6 is officially an antique.
>
>


VC *anything* should not be seen as an implementation of any standards :).

I've heard the .NET stuff is better but they've added a ton of
extensions to "managed C++" that really isn't C++ anymore.

In fact I was told they were lobbying to get that stuff into the
standard but Bjarne isn't favorable to language changes that he thinks
could be solved in libraries.

Dave