3 ms·

Actually C++ is not a superset of C. And it does have these kinds of issues. C++ continued to diverge with C99/C11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility

Actually C++ is not a superset of C. And it does have these kinds of issues. C++ continued to diverge with C99/C11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_of_C_and_C%2B%2B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_of_C_and_C%2B%2B Function pointers are one scary area. I don't know if C++11/C++14 decided to fix this yet. Most people relied on undefined behavior to make this work.

rogerbinns 11y ago
Since we are in pedant's corner, note that I very carefully used past tense. Yes it originally was a design goal. Source: The Design and Evolution of C++, by Bjarne Stroustrup. (I don't know which printing I have.) Page 120, Section 4.5 "No gratuitous incompatibilities with C". It explains my original claim, and also why it couldn't be 100% compatible due to some other C++ desirables (eg better type safety). Partial quote: "C++ doesn't aim at 100% compatibility with C because that would have compromised the aims of type safety and support for design. However, where these aims are not interfered with incompatibilities are avoided - even at the cost of inelegance. In most cases, C incompatibilities have been accepted only when a C rule left a gaping hole in the type system."