I guess I will wait a week or so. (Going on a long Easter weekend anyway ;-)"Ingo" == Ingo Prötel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ingo> I would like to suggest removing all C++ keywords as names in Ingo> the native implementations of GNU Classpath. We have a customer Ingo> who insists on using C++ because of the more thorough code Ingo> inspection. To be able to compile with such a compiler we need Ingo> to change all names that are C++ keywords.
I think this idea is fine. It doesn't bother me anyway... though I'd suggest waiting for a response from folks who hack on the JNI code more than me :-)
No we should stay within C. But compiling was C++ code once in a while does give a little code review.My only comment or criticism is that, in the absence of regular checking for this, we'll just see more code like it checked in. That's been the experience with non-C89 constructs, I don't see why this would be any different. It's just too hard to remember to write in some language subset without compiler-assisted checking.
We could declare all the JNI code to actually be C++, of course. But then we'd see real C++ usage slip in.
We are currently in the works of making our complete VM C++ compilable. Once we have achieved this we will have a nightly integration build with a C++ compiler. I will then be glad to submit patches to fix the C++ building (we will need to do those anyway).
A third option would be for you to periodically try it out and check in patches like the one you sent :-). Assuming the other developers are ok with this, it wouldn't be unreasonable, just a bit messy.
Tom
ingo
-- Ingo Prötel [EMAIL PROTECTED] aicas GmbH http://www.aicas.com Haid-und-Neu-Str. 18 phone +49 721 663 968-32 76131 Karlsruhe fax +49 721 663 968-93 Germany
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
