Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:01:20PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: | > As a general observation: A lot of the things you have found to be | > problematic, are in fact preferred idioms for C code. For instance, | > no standard-C programmer would ever write an explicit cast on malloc's | > return value. I think that we are losing something, if only in | > readability, if we restrict our code to the subset of C which is also | > correct C++. Now, if we were migrating to C++, that would be okay, | > because we would (eventually) get all of the additional expressive power | > of C++ in exchange. However, if we're not migrating to C++, I'm opposed | > to the inclusion of patches that restrict our C code to the subset which | > is correct C++. Furthermore, as I've said before, I support migrating | > to C++ -- but only if the C++ ABI and libstdc++ soname are first | > permanently frozen. If we do not do that first, we risk being trapped | > into a situation where we need specific versions of GCC to compile | > specific newer versions of GCC, which would be a Bad Thing. | | You keep saying this and I don't think it means what you think it | means...
Furthermore, I do not believe doing that (at least, as I understand it is any resonable. At any case, it is completely indpendent of the patches that align us to our coding standards. -- Gaby
