Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.clos
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!lard.ftp.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!world!bobduff
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: C++ not OOP? (Was: Language Efficiency
Message-ID: <D8tw7E.F57@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <dewar.797512974@gnat> <dewar.800804350@gnat> <rshapiro-1805951247290001@esb.bbn.com> <dewar.800831371@gnat>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 13:59:38 GMT
Lines: 10
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:31110 comp.lang.c++:129015 comp.lang.ada:30077 comp.lang.clos:2942

In article <dewar.800831371@gnat>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I also think that fix and continue is VERY valuable, as I mentioned before. Let me ask you,
>have you used fix and continue systems (with languages like C++).

What exactly do you mean by "fix and continue"?  Do you mean modify
running code in the debugger, and then continue execution, as various
Lisp (etc.) systems support?  Do you believe that's easier to implement
and/or cheaper at compile time than incremental compilation?

- Bob
