On 2002-06-10, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > Ok, a quick look shows what I expected it to show, c++ code that looks > like c in first and second glance. No templates, in inheritance, no > overloading, none of the things that make c++ c++. In the kernel, I > don't care if the struct is called 'class', and if you pass an object > by reference instead of by pointer, and if you have a string class, > instead of a char*.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why would templates be a bad idea for kernel code (assuming for this argument that dumbed down C++ is OK)? I thought templates do the hard work at compile time, but don't have overhead at runtime? Or is it just more bug prone and harder to debug? ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
