C program is standard C++ program?

[strutsng]

I want if "a C program is a standard C++ program, but not vice versa"
is a correct statement?

In a C++ program, we can use standard C libraries. However, we cannot
use C++ libraries inside C program.

Please advise. thanks!!

[John Carson]

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@s pamcop.net> wrote in message
news:do******** *************** *********@4ax.c om

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:53:07 +1000, in comp.lang.c , "John Carson"
<jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote:

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@s pamcop.net> wrote in message
news:oa******** *************** *********@4ax.c om

And /I/ feel on safe grounds appealing to the authority of the many
experts in CLC, who disagree with Bjarne on this point. No
disrespect to him, but last time I heard, he was a) not impartial
in this debate and b) not a C expert.

I will grant you a) but not b). I think Stroustrup knows every last
detail about what C code is not legal C++ code.

I sincerely doubt that. There's probably no human alive who knows
*every last detail*, and I bet you a pound that Bjarne would be the
first to say that he's not The One.

They are listed in Annex C of the C++ standard. If you think they have
missed one, I am sure the C++ standards committee would be grateful to have
it drawn to their attention.

The more substantial point in the context of this discussion is that a lack
of technical expertise in C on Stroustrup's part is *not* the explanation
for any disagreement between him and others on the relationship between C
and C++.

--
John Carson

[John Carson]

"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware .com> wrote in message
news:lY******** ************@gi ganews.com

"John Carson" <jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote in message
news:dj******** ***@otis.netspa ce.net.au...

But its a futile debate - whether they're sub or supersets of each
other is irrelevant, they're functionalyl quite different languages
and anyone who treats either one as a subset of the other is a Bad
Programmer.

Thanks.

Just to remove any doubt...John Carson did not write the passage beginning
with "But its a futile debate..." The passage is a quote from Mark McIntyre.

--
John Carson

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <dj***********@ otis.netspace.n et.au>,
John Carson <jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote:

"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware .com> wrote in message
news:lY******* *************@g iganews.com

"John Carson" <jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote in message
news:dj******** ***@otis.netspa ce.net.au...

But its a futile debate - whether they're sub or supersets of each
other is irrelevant, they're functionalyl quite different languages
and anyone who treats either one as a subset of the other is a Bad
Programmer.

Thanks.

Just to remove any doubt...John Carson did not write the passage beginning
with "But its a futile debate..." The passage is a quote from Mark McIntyre.

Just to remove any doubt... Kenny McCormack did not write any of the
passages above. They are all quotes from various other people.

(Yes, John, we all understand multi-level quoting)

[Marcus Kwok]

>>> "John Carson" <jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote in message

news:dj******** ***@otis.netspa ce.net.au...
> But its a futile debate - whether they're sub or supersets of each
> other is irrelevant, they're functionalyl quite different languages
> and anyone who treats either one as a subset of the other is a Bad
> Programmer.

"P.J. Plauger" <pj*@dinkumware .com> wrote in message
news:lY****** **************@ giganews.com

Thanks.

In article <dj***********@ otis.netspace.n et.au>,
John Carson <jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote:

Just to remove any doubt...John Carson did not write the passage beginning
with "But its a futile debate..." The passage is a quote from Mark McIntyre.

In comp.lang.c++ Kenny McCormack <ga*****@yin.in teraccess.com> wrote: Just to remove any doubt... Kenny McCormack did not write any of the
passages above. They are all quotes from various other people.

(Yes, John, we all understand multi-level quoting)

The problem is that the attribution was snipped.

--
Marcus Kwok

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <dj**********@n ews-int.gatech.edu> ,
....

The problem is that the attribution was snipped.

There was no problem. John was just being a d*ck.
(As am I...)

[John Carson]

"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@yin.in teraccess.com> wrote in message
news:dj******** **@yin.interacc ess.com

In article <dj**********@n ews-int.gatech.edu> ,
...

The problem is that the attribution was snipped.

There was no problem. John was just being a d*ck.
(As am I...)

The problem was as Marcus Kwok stated: the attribution was snipped (just as
you have snipped the attribution of his statement). Multiple indentation, by
itself, does not suffice to identify the author.

I won't dignify the rest of your post with comment.

--
John Carson

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:04:44 +1000, in comp.lang.c , "John Carson"
<jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote:

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@s pamcop.net> wrote in message
news:do******* *************** **********@4ax. com

I sincerely doubt that. There's probably no human alive who knows
*every last detail*, and I bet you a pound that Bjarne would be the
first to say that he's not The One.
They are listed in Annex C of the C++ standard.

Annex C (which is informative by the way, meaning its not part of the
Standard itself, and should not be considered as 'gospel') lists the
differences between C and C++, as of C89. Perhaps there's been a TC to
update that section, but otherwise its incorrect.

And I don't think that any unbiassed observer could read that section
and still claim that C was a subset of C++.
The more substantial point in the context of this discussion is that a lack
of technical expertise in C on Stroustrup's part is *not* the explanation
for any disagreement between him and others on the relationship between C
and C++.

If any C++ guru seriously thinks that C is substantively a subset of
C++, he's mistaken, irrespective of pedigree. A casual read through
Annex C lists a host of incompatibiliti es which are in common usage.

However given that the quote has been consistently misquoted out of
context, this is pointless discussing further. Perhaps you'd like to
take this to alt.flames?
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:16:30 +1000, in comp.lang.c , "John Carson"
<jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote:

The problem was as Marcus Kwok stated: the attribution was snipped (just as
you have snipped the attribution of his statement). Multiple indentation, by
itself, does not suffice to identify the author.

I suspect nobody particularly cared, since what was written was both
correct and noncontrovertia l.

Save your ire for times when you're misattributed something offensive
or just plain wrong.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John Carson]

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@s pamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3k******** *************** *********@4ax.c om

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:16:30 +1000, in comp.lang.c , "John Carson"
<jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote:

The problem was as Marcus Kwok stated: the attribution was snipped
(just as you have snipped the attribution of his statement).
Multiple indentation, by itself, does not suffice to identify the
author.
I suspect nobody particularly cared, since what was written was both
correct and noncontrovertia l.

You are within your rights to claim that

"But its a futile debate - whether they're sub or supersets of each
other is irrelevant, they're functionalyl quite different languages
and anyone who treats either one as a subset of the other is a Bad
Programmer."

is correct. It is remarkable to me that you claim it is not controversial
(unless we are to read subset to mean exact subset, which noone
has been claiming and hence has not been part of the debate, futile or
otherwise).
Save your ire for times when you're misattributed something offensive
or just plain wrong.

P.J. Plauger's response to your comment was to say "Thanks". He may have
meant it. On a second reading, I thought that his intent may have been
ironic based on another of his posts saying:

"Right, but in our case we have reason to write C code that also
*compiles* as C++ code. And for that reason, we care about the
largest common subset of the two languages."

In other words, he may have taken you (or, much worse, me) to have described
him as a Bad Programmer, hence my concern for the accuracy of the
attribution.

This will be my last reply (and I am refraining from responding to your
other post). I agree with you (though for different reasons) that this has
become pointless.

--
John Carson

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:33:54 +1000, in comp.lang.c , "John Carson"
<jc************ ****@netspace.n et.au> wrote:

It is remarkable to me that you claim it is not controversial
I can't help what you find remarkable, I'm afraid...
P.J. Plauger's response to your comment was to say "Thanks". He may have
meant it. On a second reading, I thought that his intent may have been
ironic
PJ's company programs to a subset of both C *and* C++, as they need
code that compiles on both platforms.....
based on another of his posts saying:

"Right, but in our case we have reason to write C code that also
*compiles* as C++ code. And for that reason, we care about the
largest common subset of the two languages."
.... as this post makes plain. This is a different animal entirely.
In other words, he may have taken you (or, much worse, me) to have described
him as a Bad Programmer,

I very much doubt it.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----