[C++-Discussion] SPECS: "Significantly Prettier and Easier C++ Syntax&

[rpgfan]

A Modest Proposal: C++ Resyntaxed

For all of those that are familiar with C++, I figured this paper that I stumbled upon might interest some C++ programmers here. I'm tempted to create a sort of "C++front" type of deal for SPECS just as Bjarne Stroustrup created Cfront to translate C++ to C. Of course, temptation never wins with me (that's a good thing! :))

[kjordan2001]

Can't say I care for ^ as the pointer symbol since that's also for an XOR. Then again, a * is multiplication. However, I find the caret hard to look at. It also has a few too many square brackets for my taste. I also tend to like my types before the variable name, however, I would like to vote that the struct type gets simplified so that I don't either have to typedef it or put struct all the time before the type.

One also has to remember that this will break all compatibility with C code you include in your C++ program as well. So both languages would have to be overhauled to accomplish this.

[rpgfan]

  kjordan2001 said:

One also has to remember that this will break all compatibility with C code you include in your C++ program as well. So both languages would have to be overhauled to accomplish this.

That's what the following is for:

lang "C"
{
	#ifndef _STDIO_H_
		#include <stdio.h>
	#endif
	void fooPrint (int i)
	{
		printf("%d\n", i);
	}
}

3.1.5. Language declarations [dcl.asm, dcl.link] :)

I can see what you mean about XOR though. Then again, replacing it with a binary '!' makes sense to me. After all, it is the opposite of EQV/XNOR, and EQV is operator== (sort of) in C++. Since operator== changes into operator= and operator= changes to operator:=, it makes sense to have the complement of operator= be operator!. The main problem with it is the difference between unary '!' (logical NOT) and binary '!' (bitwise XOR). Then again, there are similar things in the current incarnation of C++, so I suppose it works. :p

Edit: In addition to section 3.1.5, there is also point #4 in section 4:

  Quote

The same preprocessor (cpp) and standard libraries are used for both languages.

(referring to C++ and SPECS, but it applies to C as well) Edited March 15, 2008 by rpgfan

[CdCViRus]

NO!!! LEAVE C++ ALONE!!!

nobody is going to want to learn new syntax anyway. if they change the syntax, they might as well bury this awesome language.

if they want, they can design a new language and call it C+++. i wanna see how many people use their language. (hint: not many)