From: mordor.nospam@fly.srk.fer.hr   
      
   On 2012-07-07, Le Chaud Lapin  wrote:   
      
      
   > that C++ is additive to C, not disruptive. C++ does not redefine the   
   > semantics of keywords that are already extant in C.   
      
   You complained about MS redefining semantics of 'class' keyword, so   
   I'll give you an example of how C++ also redefined some keywords.  In   
   C, given a function declared like   
      
   f(struct my_struct s);   
      
   [struct passed by value] I KNOW what's going to happen when it's called.   
   In C++ I MUST first look up the definition of my_struct, possibly also   
   of all its superclasses in order to determine what's going to happen.   
      
   So I'm wondering by which criterion in your book 'ref class' is   
   "redefining" semantics, but the above-described change is merely   
   "additive"?   
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)