11–20 of 28 posts
> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically converted to "narrower" types in C++ as they are in C.
There are differences, but they are few and far between.
> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically converted to "narrower" types in C++ as they are in C.
>"virtually" There are differences, but they are few and far between.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"virtually" There are differences, but they are few and far between.
That does disqualify C++ as the __superset__ of C doesn't it?
(Of course, you're right.)
Please update the section on storage classes. Auto is no longer a storage class, but a keyword for automatic type deduction. Also, register has recently been deprecated as well, if I remember correctly.
This appears to be a C++03 guide, as it doesn't mention any C++11 features (no range based for). To be fair it is definitely a "quick" guide, and doesn't cover enough to actually be productive in C++ (pointers\memory allocation and references are missing...), but you're right that auto and register are the only things that appear to be explicitly wrong, instead of wrong by omission.
EDIT: ... because a) it's extremely outdated, and b) it doesn't even give you the basics.
> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically converted to "narrower" types in C++ as they are in C.
> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically converted to "narrower" types in C++ as they are in C.
Syntactically, C++ is a superset of C though, right? I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, but I'm not exactly am expert in either
enum toto { a = 1 }; enum toto b = 1;
Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code).
Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically converted to "narrower" types in C++ as they are in C.
Syntactically, C++ is a superset of C though, right? I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, but I'm not exactly am expert in either
Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code).
Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically converted to "narrower" types in C++ as they are in C.
Syntactically, C++ is a superset of C though, right? I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, but I'm not exactly am expert in either
Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code).
Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.