Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

[Laurence Finston]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Hans Aberg wrote:

> It would not be the old union, but a new union with new required
> semantics, that is clear.

My point was that `union' is an element of the C and C++ languages,
whereas your new `Union' class would not be.  I think this is important,
others may not.

> >The compatibility of C++ to C is not complete but reasonably close.
> >I think this is one of the best and most important features of C++.

> Personally, I think this is one of the biggest hurdles with C++,
> because it inherits all C language quirks.

Stroustrup gives very thorough explanations of why he decided to do it
this way and is very open about the disadvantages.  There is no free
lunch.  It certainly makes it easier for a C programmer to start using
C++.  If it were not so, I suspect it would make it more difficult or even
impossible to do the kind of low-level programming with C++ that's
possible with C.  If this were so, it would make C++ useless from my
point of view.  (I know not everybody will agree me.)

Laurence