"A good programming language is far more than a simple collection of features. My ideal is to provide a set of facilities that smoothly work together to support design and programming styles of a generality beyond my imagination. Here, I briefly outline rules of thumb (guidelines, principles) that are being applied in the design of C++0x. Then, I present the state of the standards process (we are aiming for C++09) and give examples of a few of the proposals such as concepts, generalized initialization, being considered in the ISO C++ standards committee. Since there are far more proposals than could be presented in an hour, I'll take questions." Dr. Bjarne Stroustrup is the original designer and implementer of the C++ Programming Language.
Member since:
2005-07-06
1) It's less prone to error than having to write a full method call, since you're likely to get a graphical hint from the editor you're using. In any case, it's not more prone to error than omitting any other closing braket.
2) The compiler might emit a non trivial error, this depends on the compiler, but at least it will complain. A far better situation than it not complaining at all.
Quite a controversial statement from soneone who advocates the compiler to have all features one needs... then use an external tool to do something the compiler can already do? ;-)
I don't agree, I don't want to pay for what I don't use. But in any case, "default array" is nonsense: declaring the type of an object is up to me, it's me who decides whether or not to use a certain type or not, certainly not the compiler. Therefore, wherever I want I can use the bound-checked array.
That is to say, the "default bound-checked array" is a policy I, the programmer, have to and can adopt without any extra efforts.