PO> 
PO> Well I now know that at school I am using Borland 5.0  and I also
PO> positively know that symantic is ANSI/ISO,  but what difference
PO> will it make in the future?  I mean give me an example why a
PO> ANSI/IOS would be better than an AT&T V3.0  or visa versa. 
Well one reason that ISO is better is that it is the future standard. 
I.e. most of the compiler manufacturers will be moving their product in
that direction eventually.  BTW please note that while I am almost
positive that Borland C++ 5.0 is ANSI/ISO, I have never seen BC++ 5.0. I
have seen only one compiler that was ANSI compliant and that is the new
(October, 1997) Hewlett Packard AC++ compiler for their HP-9000 Unix
boxes.
There are a lot of reasons why ISO is better than AT&T 3.0.  (IMHO)
ISO represents the culmination of many years of research and
feedback from the C++ community.  Exceptions are built into the
standard library.  E.g. if the system cannot satisfy a request to
allocate memory, (the "new" operator fails) ISO C++ will throw an
object of type "badalloc".  AT&T V3.0 C++ will return a null pointer 
from the new operator.   There are several new datatypes built into
the standard library via STL.  For instance there is now an ISO/ANSI
standard string class.  This does away with all of the hassles caused
by each compiler having its' own string class.  I have a whole slew of
library code for strings, exceptions, vectors, lists, etc. that I no
longer need when using an ISO/ANSI compiler.  (Did I mention that STL is
built into ISO/ANSI C++?)  Of course like everything else, there is no
accounting for taste!
Thanks
Peter
---
 þ KWQ/2 1.2i þ Safe sex means never having to say "You've got WHAT?"
---------------