Re: Larch/C++ and C++

   Thanks. I read lcpp.ps.gz and found the part about significant
   differences between LCL and LC++. Hmmm... LCL doesn't support <:,
   and if I write LC++ specs, I can't use LCLint. Darn.

Eventually, given sufficient funding, there will be something like LCLint
for Larch/C++.  However, if you need something like LCLint in the next 2
years, your best bet is to use LCLint itself; it's unique for now.
The current plan for Larch/C++ is to get a symbol table working.
Unfortunately, due to the complexity of C++, this has defeated 2 graduate
students (so far), in part because they weren't funded properly.

   I find the comments about the daunting task of developing formal
   semantics of Larch/C++ kinda funny. C++ is an unholy mess! And believe
   me: the complexity of C++ that makes developing formalisms to describe
   it are just a hint of the problems that show up in real-world use of C++.

   [list of problems omitted]

I should just smile at this (:-).  But it's true.  C++ is somewhat of
a nightmare.  All the problems in the Larch/C++ grammar are things
I've inherited (:-) from the C++ declaration syntax.  Sigh.
But we shouldn't turn this mailing list into a discussion of the merits
or demerits of C++.  Jeannette Wing suggested Larch/C++ as a project that
would have "real world impact".  It's true -- C++ is certainly the real
world.  If you want something nicer, try LM3 or Larch/Smalltalk.