5 ms·

> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically co

> C++ is a superset of C, and that virtually any legal C program is a legal C++ program. This is not true. One example, void* pointers are not automatically converted to "narrower" types in C++ as they are in C.

EpicEng 9y ago
>"virtually" There are differences, but they are few and far between.
- minipci1321 9y ago
  That does disqualify C++ as the __superset__ of C doesn't it?
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    I offer you the infamous phrase "extended superset" made famous in the world of SQL databases :). (Of course, you're right.)
    - lomnakkus 9y ago
      Ugh, flubbed that: "extended subset". Sorry about that.
  - flukus 9y ago
    C++ is a subclass of C that violates the liskov substitution principle.
saghm 9y ago
Syntactically, C++ is a superset of C though, right? I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, but I'm not exactly am expert in either
- minipci1321 9y ago
  > I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, enum toto { a = 1 }; enum toto b = 1; Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code). Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
  - saghm 9y ago
    Thanks for the example!
- minipci1321 9y ago
  > I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, enum toto { a = 1 }; enum toto b = 1; Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code). Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
- minipci1321 9y ago
  > I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, enum toto { a = 1 }; enum toto b = 1; Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code). Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
- bstamour 9y ago
  C supports variable-length stack-allocated arrays, while C++ doesn't. So code like void f() { int x; scanf("%d", &x); // read from user int numbers[x]; // dynamic } is legal C, but not C++. Also, the C "restrict" keyword doesn't exist in C++ either. Add in C's looser typing rules regarding conversions, and C and C++ are basically sibling languages at this point. Their common ancestor language being K&R-era C.

EpicEng 9y ago

>"virtually" There are differences, but they are few and far between.

minipci1321 9y ago
That does disqualify C++ as the __superset__ of C doesn't it?
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  I offer you the infamous phrase "extended superset" made famous in the world of SQL databases :). (Of course, you're right.)
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    Ugh, flubbed that: "extended subset". Sorry about that.
- flukus 9y ago
  C++ is a subclass of C that violates the liskov substitution principle.

saghm 9y ago

Syntactically, C++ is a superset of C though, right? I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, but I'm not exactly am expert in either

minipci1321 9y ago
> I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, enum toto { a = 1 }; enum toto b = 1; Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code). Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
- saghm 9y ago
  Thanks for the example!
minipci1321 9y ago
> I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, enum toto { a = 1 }; enum toto b = 1; Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code). Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
minipci1321 9y ago
> I can't think of any C syntax that's not valid C++, enum toto { a = 1 }; enum toto b = 1; Fixing versions of both standards could bring in more examples (like trailing comma in enums and use of the names reserved in C++, by the C code). Overall, ironically, as typing is stronger in C++ (which I agree is a non-syntactic change), poor C code (using lots of unjustified casts), will require less modifications to be compiled as C++.
bstamour 9y ago
C supports variable-length stack-allocated arrays, while C++ doesn't. So code like void f() { int x; scanf("%d", &x); // read from user int numbers[x]; // dynamic } is legal C, but not C++. Also, the C "restrict" keyword doesn't exist in C++ either. Add in C's looser typing rules regarding conversions, and C and C++ are basically sibling languages at this point. Their common ancestor language being K&R-era C.