Ulrich Eckhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > which could even be profitably used for *just this purpose*, and yet, > > it isn't.
> There are some mistakes here: the 'extern "C"' declaration is only a hint to > the compiler that I said the syntax *could* be used to say "this is C syntax", but *it isn't*. > No one ever said so. It is just a known fact about and design goal > of C++ to be able to compile most legal C-programs and make porting > of the rest a piece of cake. You will nonetheless end up with still > legal and good C programs afterwards, everybody does it and no two > are complaining. Actually, the C++ programmer can do perfectly well by suitable #defines around their inclusion of the header, to protect the C++ reserved words that are being used as C identifier names. > Refusing to support something that is as wide-spread as C++ and as easy to > support is not helping anyone. Oh, but I think it is. I also don't support visual basic, for similar reasons. But C++ programmers *can* include the header, you know...just do it yourself. > I personally have just two questions left to you: Do you have the > power to prevent compatibility to C++ from entering cthreads ? Probably. Power to do X and desire to do X are not the same thing. > Assuming yes, will you do so or will you first take a look at the > patches ? I will probably totally ignore them (as I have happily done thus far). But I'm not the only one who can check in patches. Thomas