«

Why there is no overloading (function and operator), function templates
and exception handling support in c? after all these are all useful
programming constructs.

What prevents ANSI/ISO committee to add these into c?

v4vijayakumar a écrit :
> Why there is no overloading (function and operator), function templates
> and exception handling support in c? after all these are all useful
> programming constructs.
>
> What prevents ANSI/ISO committee to add these into c?
>

Well, the lcc-win32 C compiler provides some of those.

See the document
ftp://ftp.cs.virginia.edu/pub/lcc-win32/proposal.pdf

for a detailed description

v4vijayakumar wrote:
> Why there is no overloading (function and operator), function templates
> and exception handling support in c? after all these are all useful
> programming constructs.
>
> What prevents ANSI/ISO committee to add these into c?
>
Because they can be found elsewhere, C++ for example. C does what it
does, if you want do do something else, use another tool.

--
Ian Collins.

Ian Collins wrote:
> Because they can be found elsewhere, C++ for example. C does what it
> does, if you want do do something else, use another tool.

the question is "why these are not C yet?". IMHO, If C++ or any other
programming languages have these then it can not be a solution to C.

v4vijayakumar wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>
>>Because they can be found elsewhere, C++ for example. C does what it
>>does, if you want do do something else, use another tool.
>
>
> the question is "why these are not C yet?". IMHO, If C++ or any other
> programming languages have these then it can not be a solution to C.
>
The answer is why should they be in C?

This has been asked many times before, have a look though the group
archives.

--
Ian Collins.

Ian Collins wrote:
> v4vijayakumar wrote:
> > Ian Collins wrote:
> >
> >>Because they can be found elsewhere, C++ for example. C does what it
> >>does, if you want do do something else, use another tool.
> >
> >
> > the question is "why these are not C yet?". IMHO, If C++ or any other
> > programming languages have these then it can not be a solution to C.
> >
> The answer is why should they be in C?

I think a better answer is: "they aren't in C **yet** because
they never will be. The never will be because they don't belong."

It's like asking: "when will assembly have garbage collection?"
or "when will VHDL provide a tty interface?".

C is, at heart, a systems programming language. It has to be able to
run without a runtime environment, and often on very small computers.
Adding such features would reduce the usefulness of the language for
many important purposes.

wrote:

Please provide context when replying. See the Google section at
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

> C is, at heart, a systems programming language. It has to be able to
> run without a runtime environment,

That will be why it has a library defined by the standard then, so that
there is no run time support...

> and often on very small computers.
> Adding such features would reduce the usefulness of the language for
> many important purposes.

Possibly. A bigger reason in my opinion is that there are already
languages with those things, so why turn C in to one?
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

wrote:

> C is, at heart, a systems programming language. It has to be able to
> run without a runtime environment, and often on very small computers.
> Adding such features would reduce the usefulness of the language for
> many important purposes.

What features? Please read the information below.



Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

"" wrote:
>
> C is, at heart, a systems programming language. It has to be able to
> run without a runtime environment, and often on very small computers.
> Adding such features would reduce the usefulness of the language for
> many important purposes.

What features?

In general on usenet you should realize that readers may very well
not have convenient access to previous articles in a thread. That
means that your reply articles should include adequate context, so
that they stand by themselves. Google is NOT usenet, it is only a
very poor interface to the real usenet system. To include proper
context when using google, see my sig. below. Please be sure to
read the referenced URLs.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>