Talk:Operators in C and C++: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:27, 11 June 2025

Latest revision as of 16:57, 3 July 2025

Line 47:

:::: Is it true from the point of view of operators however? I don't remember C99 introducing any new operators.

:::: C++ didn't take any operators ''away'', and [[C99]] didn't add any (check the article). [[User:141.149.206.197|141.149.206.197]] 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::+1(121)254(9150)(talk)01:90 11 June 1921 [[Special:Contributions/102.91.4.155|102.91.4.155]] ([[User talk:102.91.4.155|talk]]) 01:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::: C++ can't be described as a superset of C unless it contains all of the features that C contains, and unless all C programs translate correctly under a C++ environment. The modulo operator provides an example of a C program translating incorrectly under a C++ environment. [[User:Plebbeh|Plebbeh]] ([[User talk:Plebbeh|talk]]) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Line 54 ⟶ 53:

:: Right, that's why it says "no" under "in C?" --[[User:131.215.155.112|131.215.155.112]] 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::+1:214:429:5125 (00:00)10:42, 12 December 2025 (Stephen Jasper) unsubscribe [[Special:Contributions/102.91.4.155|102.91.4.155]] ([[User talk:102.91.4.155|talk]]) 01:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

: I agree, let's have different articles. Currently the article is quite a mess since C doesn't have the concept of operator overloading. If the article was split, both ''Overloadable'' and ''Prototype examples'' columns could be not included in the article about operators in C and we won't need ''Included in C'' column at all. If we had separate articles, it would be possible to better present the details of operators in each C and C++.[[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)