I'm pretty sure that the use of these reserved name is exactly the obfuscation Mad_Guy was complaining about.The standard reserves the leading underscore and uppercase letter combination for internal names precisely so that obfuscation is not a necessity.
Regarding modules, there was a modules proposal for C++0x, which had some very solid ideas, but was rejected because it was too vague and incomplete yet. But modules are coming to C++, one way or another.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
O_o
"_M*" is obfuscation?
Well, I'll be *@%!#&.
Soma
Of course it's not. It's only on the mind of those wanting desperately to say something bad about C++.
The only person I heard publicly speaking of this was Herb Sutter. However he supported this idea in order to speed compilation of large programs and simplify their dependencies. That, I feel, places modules in the back of the pile. It's not because it will be made a technical report that it will ever see the light of the day. And I'm still not convinced the work on standardization of dynamic libraries can't replace modules.Originally Posted by CornedBee
"Modules are coming one way or another", seems to me wishful thinking.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Well if someone wants to hate a hammer then I guess that is their choice. I'd rather use it for what it was intended for instead of sitting around complaining that I can't drive in nails the way I want just yet.
I believe that all they're saying is that a hammer might not work well for all situations (crowded spaces, for example), so they want to invent a new hammer that does work well for all situations (like crowded spaces).
The new hammer might not be proven, so they're marketing it.
Of course the old hammer works, and if you've got the technique down, crowded spaces probably aren't a problem.
Hehe. Nice analogy. What I'm saying is that if you are in a tight space then maybe you shouldn't use the hammer. Complaining about the hammer not working in tight spaces is not going to help anyone. Unless of course someone then invents a hammer that does work in tight spaces...and then tries to show how the new hammer works better for everything.I believe that all they're saying is that a hammer might not work well for all situations (crowded spaces, for example), so they want to invent a new hammer that does work well for all situations (like crowded spaces).
