C ++的终结 [英] The End of C++

问题描述

小组，

我有一个可怕的C ++视力下降

由于非常结构性的b $ b但是明显的二分法接近于它的核心：


Ellis，Stroustrup;The Annotated C ++

参考手册，1995，第11.2节：


定义默认访问说明符（对于

成员）可能是一个错误。


类的概念是无效的，因为

与struct相同。使用

显式访问说明符。我的第14感觉

告诉我这是错误的并且会使

语言失衡。 C ++程序员是否佩戴

不对称胡须？


： - ！）


-X

解决方案

代理Mulder写道：

小组，
我有一个可怕的C ++下降的愿景，因为一个非常结构的
： - ！）

走开，你吮吸，可能闻起来很糟糕......


klaas

" Agent Mulder" < MB ******************* @ home.nl>在消息中写道

news：bi ********** @ news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl ...

嗨组，
Ellis，Stroustrup;The Annotated C ++
参考手册"，1995，第11.2节：

定义默认访问说明符（对于
成员）可能是一个错误。
阶级的概念是无效的，因为结构可以做同样的事情。使用
显式访问说明符。

他们保留两者用于可用性目的，而不是技术C ++语言原因。

> Ellis，Stroustrup;The Annotated C ++

Reference Manual"，1995，section 11.2：

"定义默认访问说明符（对于
成员）是可能是一个错误。

我不知道你怎么从这里得到C ++崩溃，除非

当然你只是在拖钓，但是你不会这样做，现在，不是吗？


如果需要一个巨魔才能让你想到

我会成为巨魔，是的。看看措辞，


可能是个错误


这不足以告诉你吗？错误很大！

这就像两个兄弟一个被允许

一切而另一个是不允许的。

不对称。我不知道这意味着什么，但是

我用我的直觉和想象力来看待我这个看完C ++的整个塔楼，非常好。

略微，非常轻微...


： - "）


-X

Hi group,
I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
to pieces because of a very structural
but clear dichotomy close at its heart:

Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++
Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:

"Defining a default access specifier (for
members) was probably a mistake."

The notion of a "class" is void because
the same can be done with "struct" with
explicit access specifiers. My 14th sense
tells me this is wrong and disbalances the
language. Do C++ programmers wear
asymmetrical moustaches?

:-!)

-X

解决方案

Agent Mulder wrote:

Hi group,
I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
to pieces because of a very structural :-!)

Go away, you suck and probably smell bad...

klaas

"Agent Mulder" <mb*******************@home.nl> wrote in message
news:bi**********@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...

Hi group,
I had a horrible vision of C++ falling
to pieces because of a very structural
but clear dichotomy close at its heart:

Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++
Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:

"Defining a default access specifier (for
members) was probably a mistake."

The notion of a "class" is void because
the same can be done with "struct" with
explicit access specifiers.

They kept both for usability purposes, not technical C++ language reasons.

> Ellis,Stroustrup;"The Annotated C++

Reference Manual", 1995, section 11.2:

"Defining a default access specifier (for
members) was probably a mistake."

I don''t see how you get from here to "C++ falling to pieces", unless of
course you''re just trolling, but you wouldn''t do that, now, would you?

If it takes a troll to make you think
I''ll be a troll, yes. Look at the wording,

"probably a mistake"

Doesn''t that tell you enough? Big mistake!
It''s like two brothers were one is allowed
everything and the other is allowed nothing.
Asymmetric. I don''t know what it means but
I use my intuition and my imagination and I
see the whole tower of C++ lean over very
slightly, very very slightly...

:-")

-X

这篇关于C ++的终结的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！