The FAQ Board

[SlyMaelstrom]

Anything that names an identifier using a keyword introduced by C++ (e.g. new, delete) would fail to compile. The article I linked points out a lot more. Keep in mind that there was C code written decades before C++ was created.

*ahem*

The exception being, of course, the use of C++ keywords as identifiers in a C program.

Let's make sure we read more clearly next time, thank you.

This is, of course, true and practically it is one of the best examples of why you can't take any old C program and throw it into a C++ compiler. Things like template, new, delete, etc were certainly used as identifiers in older C programs... however, it's not an example of why one language is not a superset of another, as any superset will have a larger vocabulary than it's subset.

... and that link doesn't contain "a lot of examples," of C99 code that will not compile in a C++ compiler and the examples that it does provide represent code that would never be used practically unless the code was intentionally obfuscated for various reasons.

Regardless, I will give you that the sentence shouldn't definite and should be changed... then again, I was agreeing that it should be changed since my very first post in this topic, I was simply explaining the reasoning behind the context.

[medievalelks]

Look medievaleks, we may agree to disagree. That's is also a good starting point.

The problem is how you and I are reading "everything" in the context of the full post.

I don't see any ambiguity in this statement:

"the point was that everything that can be compiled in C can be compiled in C++."

It is further clarified with this:

"It was designed that way".

Change "everything" to "much", and we can talk :-)

[SlyMaelstrom]

I don't see any ambiguity in this statement:

"the point was that everything that can be compiled in C can be compiled in C++."

It is further clarified with this:

"It was designed that way".

Change "everything" to "much", and we can talk :-)

...but it's basically just bickering at this point. I didn't imply to express anything more definite than the original statement (which had the clarity of using "good C program" rather than just "C program") and though I did... it was just a simple foul up of word usage. Anyway, I would appease you and change "everything" to "much", however it would kind of invalidate all of the posts that follow, so I won't, now.

I have no problem agreeing with you that it should be changed, however I don't find the statement that "All good C programs are also C++ programs" because the term "good" is relative to its context.

[Mario F.]

Change "everything" to "much", and we can talk :-)

My vote is "most everything"

I agree with Sly. It's mostly nitpicking, won't you agree? But yes, it could be changed if anyone felt like doing it.

[medievalelks]

...but it's basically just bickering at this point. I didn't imply to express anything more definite than the original statement (which had the clarity of using "good C program" rather than just "C program") and though I did... it was just a simple foul up of word usage. Anyway, I would appease you and change "everything" to "much", however it would kind of invalidate all of the posts that follow, so I won't, now.

I have no problem agreeing with you that it should be changed, however I don't find the statement that "All good C programs are also C++ programs" because the term "good" is relative to its context.

That is indeed unfortunate, especially on a board dedicated to C and C++ programming. I think I'll avoid the FAQs and just participate on the C++ board, and pray that newbies don't use the FAQs.

[matsp]

The FAQ on this board is not currently maintained (at least not frequently), so bickering or not, it's unlikely to be fixed anytime soon [I do not know who would be responsible for such updates].

This is why the cpwiki.sourceforge.net was introduced, to be able to easily/quickly add/change FAQ entries.

--
Mats

[Mario F.]

My understanding of the FAQ acronym has evolved throughout the times. Mostly, it is today a cross between Frequent Asked Questions and Important Questions and Their Answers. And this holds true for message board FAQs.

I always preferred more those FAQs that are not simply the result of a thread being moved, but instead the result of a conscious effort by some authoritative source. That said, I'm unsure if anyone would want to take the time and write such thing(s). Besides, you will most probably find way more references to http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ on the C++ forum than any other link whatsoever throughout CBoard history - definitely you can count with the fingers of one hand links to the faq forum. (And Cline's exactly the type of FAQ I prefer.)

Frankly, in my humble opinion, if one post needs to be changed there, might as well gather a group of members and work on the whole FAQ forum. Throughout my apprenticeship of C++ that forum posed more questions to me than answers. Answers that I eventually found elsewhere; Cline's as mentioned before, and many other sources, including obviously the C++ forum.