I don't have a good answer, in part because I think we're more than one change separated from an alternative history I'd be happy with.
-
-
Would you care to elaborate as of why?
-
Let's play "what's being defined here?" a(*b)(c*)(*d)(e(*f)(g));
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I posted several answers already! But yeah, on minor syntactic things: absolutely Pascal-style types. Also "if cond {}" not "if (cond)" with
-
optional {}.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Multiple return values in C/C+
-
Const-by-default, mutable required for changeable vars.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
680x0 ISA wins out over 80x86. Wirth trumps over Stroustrup. XML people realized S-expressions already existed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'd ask for "int* x, y" to mean both x and y are pointers to an int
-
"int[4] x;" instead of "int x[4];" while we're at it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.