Diez B. Roggisch wrote: > You don't seem to understand what is happening here. The fact that > string literals in java exist has nothing to do with an implicit > type casting as above example shows.
Whoops. "10", arg and _arg /are/ integers, right? > C++ was new, nobody forced them to keep pointers around. For compatibility reasons to C it seems quite necessary. [interface compatibility to String] > That isn't possible with python, too. No? Mh, perhaps it's too late for my brain tonight ;) > Python has those clunky rules as well as C++ - or don't you write > character literals like > > "abcd" > > in C++ as well? Where exactly is that clunky? IMHO, that only for String class String spam = "eggs"; works (in Java). > But choices let you make more errors - which was my point from the > beginning: java is a limited language, and I don't like it too > much. But it makes it hard to do things wrong. C++ makes it hard > to make them right. I agree. *If* one is an absolute beginner with programming. C++ may have too many weird options in places where Java has one possible solution. Regards, Björn -- BOFH excuse #364: Sand fleas eating the Internet cables -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list