[lug] new operator in C++

[Chris Riddoch]

"D. Stimits" <stimits at idcomm.com> writes:

> ..
> > For some languages, notably C++, you also have to be very familiar
> > with the actual practice.  C++ has a long and ugly history of the
> > language standard being years ahead of all available compilers.  This
> > *still* seems to be a reason to be wary of C++ :-(
> 
> One language in particular is problematic. Actual practice, useage, and
> standards, all seem to be mixed bags. Worse yet, the wetware compilers
> are very non-uniform. It's known as English, you may wish to be wary of
> it if you see it.

I'm really quite doubtful of the existence of wetware compilers for
English.  Wetware *interpreters*, on the other hand, seem much more
plausible.

This nitpick presented to you by BLUG's resident linguistics major.

On that distinctly off-topic note, here's another: I've been accepted
into the combined B.A./M.A. program in linguistics, which means I
start taking more grad-level classes this fall.  (I would have
graduated next week, but now seems a poor time to be looking for
serious work in the computer industry - though I do need something for
at least the summer.  If anybody needs a geek for hire/contract, I'm
available.)

-- 
Chris Riddoch       | epistemological
socket at peakpeak.com | humility