More C++ BS:
- (admin)
- (21)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 11:39:30 AM EST
OK, the problem here is the implementation, not the language
- (jb4)
- (10)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 04:57:58 PM EST
Oh, come the heck on! Yes, it IS the language!
- (CRConrad)
- (7)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 05:08:53 PM EST
C'mon Christian...
- (jb4)
- (6)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 05:35:53 PM EST
Not that big a stretch...
- (admin)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 05:37:42 PM EST
So, it's a great language, if your definition...
- (CRConrad)
- (1)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 05:42:23 PM EST
NO, that's NOT what I said.
- (jb4)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 05:58:08 PM EST
Yeah, its the language
- (tuberculosis)
- (2)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:05:26 PM EST
Re: Yeah, its the language
- (jb4)
- (1)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:33:34 PM EST
Yes.
-NT
- (inthane-chan)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 07:19:07 PM EST
Advocacy aside:
- (admin)
- (1)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 05:35:08 PM EST
My understanding is:
- (jb4)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 05:50:57 PM EST
Update: test code: try the fun on YOUR c++ compiler!
- (admin)
- (5)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:13:45 PM EST
Borland C++ Builder 6 Pro compiles w/o error
- (jb4)
- (3)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:41:17 PM EST
Nifty for Windows users, eh?
-NT
- (admin)
- (2)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:42:07 PM EST
In Linux-land, try Kylix...
- (jb4)
- (1)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:57:42 PM EST
I'll take a look then.
-NT
- (admin)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 07:15:22 PM EST
GCC on Jaguar (3.1) works okay
-NT
- (tjsinclair)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 08:09:40 PM EST
Update: what I did to workaround this
- (admin)
- (3)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:52:39 PM EST
LUCK!!! ;-)
-NT
- (jb4)
- Feb. 10, 2003, 06:58:30 PM EST
OT: gcc 2.95 native STL is very bad
- (Arkadiy)
- (1)
- Feb. 11, 2003, 05:45:54 PM EST
I'm not using native 2.95 STL.
- (admin)
- Feb. 11, 2003, 08:19:14 PM EST
