ACCU Home page ACCU Conference Page ACCU 2017 Conference Registration Page
Search Contact us ACCU at Flickr ACCU at GitHib ACCU at Google+ ACCU at Facebook ACCU at Linked-in ACCU at Twitter Skip Navigation


Overload Journal #3 - Aug 1993 + Journal Editorial   Author: Mike Toms

Well that's another edition finally put to bed, and I think thats where I'm about to disappear after these final few paragraphs! I apologise for the delay in getting this issue out; if only there were 48 hours in a day! To counter this little predicament, I have two choices. If time and resources permit, I will try and issue at a slightly increased rate to catch up. Failing that, a credit will be issued against the following year.

Another blunder on my part has resulted in me losing a list of members requiring copies of issue 1 and 2 and the associated disks. If you are among those still expecting items, please can you write to me and I shall send you the appropriate items.

Any UNIXy type persons know of a Yacc++ or Lex++ available. If so can you let me know, so that 1 may pass the information on.

I would like a volunteer, preferably someone who already monitors the comp.lang.c++ news service on Internet, to extract and pass on interesting threads. Such threads could be edited and either put in the magazine or on the disk.

To any corporate members or readers who know of any interesting (non advertising) article or white paper that your company would give permission to be printed. They would have to be in the same vein as the articles by Cadre and IPL. If you think your company could write such an article if you don't already have one to hand, I would like to hear from you. Such articles could include such subjects as why you chose to use C++, what sort of problems you've encountered. Could you write an article on the methodology behind your CASE tools? I'm interested in it all so write to me.

As a parting thought; in C++ we can write int* x; and int *x; but if we write int* x, y; or int *x,y; they both mean the same, can anybody think of a good reason why the first case couldn't mean that x and y were both int pointers, and the second to mean that only x is an int pointer?

Overload Journal #3 - Aug 1993 + Journal Editorial