Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   And it's not like gcc didn't have similar-sounding error messages:
> > error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'x' with no type

> I've gotten a few of those and not understood them, actually. I don't 
> remember what I had, but having something more along the lines of "you 
> forgot an #include" would be a better error message, I think. :-)

  You can get that one if you write eg. "static x;"

  It should be rather clear: You have defined a static variable named 'x',
but with no type. (In C it would default to int, but the C++ standard forbids
omitting the type, which is what the error message is saying.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote in message 
news:4b878b55$1@news.povray.org...
> Coding in Haskell is like having sex with a girl
> that wears horn rimmed glasses, you'll never quite
> understand her, but it's a lot of fun.

Coding in SNOBOL is like writing a phone book because... well, because that 
was all it was ever used for.

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Makes sense.  I think the runtime code generation was what I was 
> particularly interested in, 

Huh. That's one part I don't think changed that much.  The code generation 
is used by the compiler(s) as well as in various places in the libraries. 
(For example, regular expressions compile down to IL and then native code if 
you set the flag.)

The other one is the LINQ thing, where you can set a flag that says "give me 
this expression as a parse tree rather than generating code", but that's 
limited to LINQ so far.

It's the "Reflection.Emit" namespace you want.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It should be rather clear: You have defined a static variable named 'x',
> but with no type. (In C it would default to int, but the C++ standard forbids
> omitting the type, which is what the error message is saying.)

Ah, I see. Yes.  A similar thing, that.  I think I got it because the 
47K-long compile line was missing one of the -D instructions that would have 
made
   static UINT32 x;
into a valid declaration or something. Which is why looking at it, it made 
no sense, and I couldn't find the header file that defined it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Still, at least it's better than C.

Well, it's better than C for experts. For newbies, I think C is probably 
easier, since there's less magic going on you need to know.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I'd say that Perl is like 

PHP is exactly this, yes.

> I'm not familiar with Ruby, Scheme, or Mozart. Of course I've heard of 
> all these things, but I don't know anything about them. (I started 
> reading a Ruby tutorial, but the random inconsistant syntax put me off. 
> And the ham.)

Yep. And the fact that the guy who wrote the most definitive texts doesn't 
actually know what the language does. (At several points in the Axe book, 
the author says "It seems to do this" or "it apparently does that.") And the 
fact that between minor version 18 and minor version 19 they made a bunch of 
unneccesary and seemingly trivial changes to defaults that would 
nevertheless break any program that relied on those defaults. Those are the 
main reasons I never really pursued it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

>> I'd say that Perl is like 
> 
> PHP is exactly this, yes.

Oh dears.

>> I'm not familiar with Ruby, Scheme, or Mozart. Of course I've heard of 
>> all these things, but I don't know anything about them. (I started 
>> reading a Ruby tutorial, but the random inconsistant syntax put me 
>> off. And the ham.)
> 
> Yep. And the fact that the guy who wrote the most definitive texts 
> doesn't actually know what the language does. (At several points in the 
> Axe book, the author says "It seems to do this" or "it apparently does 
> that.") And the fact that between minor version 18 and minor version 19 
> they made a bunch of unneccesary and seemingly trivial changes to 
> defaults that would nevertheless break any program that relied on those 
> defaults. Those are the main reasons I never really pursued it.

Yes.

And the thing with the ham...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Makes sense.  I think the runtime code generation was what I was 
>> particularly interested in, 
> 
> Huh. That's one part I don't think changed that much.

It's also entirely possible that I'm remembering 
incorrectly/incompletely here.

Post a reply to this message

Captain Jack wrote:
> 
> Coding in SNOBOL is like writing a phone book because... well, because that 
> was all it was ever used for.
> 

Wow, it's not often I hear that language mentioned.  Apparently it was 
also somewhat popular with people in non-technical academic fields since 
they found the string processing capabilities useful.

One of these days I'm going to learn it just because I'm curious about 
it, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Still, at least it's better than C.

> Well, it's better than C for experts. For newbies, I think C is probably 
> easier, since there's less magic going on you need to know.

  You mean newbies don't need to handle dynamically allocated memory?

  Exactly which part of C is simpler for newbies than C++?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message