From: igodard@pacbell.net   
      
   On 7/3/2012 12:16 PM, Zeljko Vrba wrote:   
   > On 2012-07-03, Le Chaud Lapin  wrote:   
      
      
      
   > According to that criterion, C++/CX could possibly be viewed as a   
   > separate language since MS docs say that extensions can be avoided   
   > and that everything can be done with standard C++.  Whether it   
   > really IS a new language, or just an acceptable extension to C++,   
   > depends on whether the developer is unreasonably burdened by using   
   > ONLY ISO C++.   
      
   You miss the point: CC++/CX is standard-conforming and can be called   
   "C++" if and only if *any* standard-conforming program from a   
   different system will successfully compile and (other than where the   
   standard explicitly asserts behavior is undefined) execute correctly   
   on the MS platform.   
      
   As I understand it (as a non-CX user) C++/CX etc. fails this   
   qualification trivially when the program uses MS "keywords" as   
   identifiers. The UK report cites other examples of failure to conform.   
      
   As for using "C++" in the name "C++/CX", there are trademark issues   
   when names are "similar enough to cause confusion".   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark. Judging by the contents of   
   this thread, it appears that confusion is triumphing.   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)