> Because it is a C++ reserved word. > It gets used in contexts (templates, in particular) > where the parser needs extra help deciding that > a name is going to be used as a type.
I used to like C++. Back in the days when David Bright built an entire compiler for MS-Dos himself (Zortech C++) and it actually worked extremely reliably. It's been uphill (not even downhill) ever since. Even the phrase "creeping featurism" isn't adequate to describe the complexity C++ seems to be subjected to. I really find it hard to believe that the best intellects in computing are incapable of stemming the tide. I appreciate that biological evolution seems to thrive on serendipitous change, but I fail to see that human cognition can cope with a similar lack of direction. Yet, that seems to me to be the trend in "bazaar" programming. As for P9GCC, its scope fairly exceeds (this) one person's capabilities. Just looking at "binutils" and "bfd", without having the slightest idea what their real intent might be and how to apply it to P9GCC, then finding wonderful snippets such as > The documentation on using BFD is scanty and may be occasionally > incorrect. Pointers to documentation problems, or an entirely > rewritten manual, would be appreciated. > > There is some BFD internals documentation in doc/bfdint.texi which may > help programmers who want to modify BFD. is enough to depress me until the end of the decade. Nevermind having to use my NetBSD server to read it and needing to learn a whole new documentation reading package to do it. ++L
