From: troplin@bluewin.ch   
      
   Edek Pienkowski  wrote:   
   > [...]   
   > When a new language is created, usually the creator can choose a name   
   > for it. There were a lot of possible names which do not contain the   
   > substring "C++". It could have been called "RuteCLI" or whatever. Why,   
   > isn't it a reasonable name? Then there were a lot of other options.   
      
   Then why does the name "C++" contain the substring "C"?   
      
   >> "Pure C++" is IIRC, traditional name for series of articles on C++   
   >> on MSDN. MS is not the guardian of "C++, The Name", and I don't see   
   >> why they should be.   
   >   
   > Out of pure decency, one does not call "nat. gas" something which you   
   > cannot be used as natural gas. Unless of course one wants to dump a   
   > lot of one's product in the market with the hope that their product   
   > will be called "natural gas" and not the commodity which has always   
   > been called natural gas, or at least that they will be confused. Try   
   > that on any exchange market and you will find that there are   
   > regulations, and that these regulations are a Good Thing. And the   
   > regulations are arbitrary, they are agreed upon.   
      
   If "pure C++" is the name of a series of articles in C++, then why   
   shouldn't it be allowed to present/discuss C++/CLI in one of those   
   articles? I mean this is comp.lang.c++.moderated and we're doing the same.   
      
   > Now, I cannot even read C++/CLI, I just don't understand it. It is not   
   > C++ with extensions, I would understand the core language with   
   > extensions if they are nicely separated, like __attribute__((aligned))   
   > or something. I could ignore extensions for a moment and understand   
   > the language. C++/CLI changes the core semantics and the fact that   
   > these are addons one does not have to use does not change this basic   
   > fact. Compatibility goes both ways.  If C++/CLI with the addons used   
   > would still work when compiled when C++ compiler, maybe with some   
   > performance degradation, I would be fine with it. Different #pragma's   
   > are an example of such a feature, they can be substituted easily with   
   > something else that just does the same job - "easily" is the key word   
   > - like #pragma once can be substituted.   
      
   As the name already suggests, you should know C++ but also CLI to   
   understand it. If you do, most of it is pretty obvious IMO.   
      
   > [...]   
   >> Finally, if your problem is usage of the name "C++" - I don't think   
   >> there's a trademark on that, for one, and also, given the similarity   
   >> and the possibility to actually use "pure" C++ in this code, some   
   >> other name, not having "C++" in it, is none the better.   
   >   
   > I think most people would be upset if they were sold some goldish   
   > looking metal at the price of gold.   
      
   If I buy something called gold/copper I'd be a fool to believe that it was   
   pure gold.   
      
   > But "gold" is not any trademark as   
   > far as I know, so you wouldn't see any problem, would you? I mean, no   
   > one protects the term "gold", so everyone can call whatever they   
   > choose "gold". Are you fine with that? It will look goldish, and it   
   > would contain some "pure" gold in it...   
      
   Just as all golden rings are made of 100% pure gold?   
      
   Tobi   
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)