This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Unified C and C++ front end (was Re: New C parser [patch])


"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:

| On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Matt Austern wrote:
| 
| > Another useful summary, "written in support of the view that
| > C/C++incompatibilities can and should be eliminated," is the following series
| > of articles:
| > http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8011/cuj0207stroustr/
| > http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8010/cuj0208stroustr/
| > http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8009/cuj0209stroustr/
| 
| This looks rather like a follow-on to Stroustrup's previous attempts on 
| the c++std-compat list in June 2001.  The general reception from the C 
| side was rather unfavorable.  People don't think that incompatibilities 
| are good in themselves (though maybe some people do) but that doesn't mean 
| the subset language route is *now* (rather than 25 years ago) a good route 
| to go for either language.  (And one view expressed was that there are too 
| many kludges for the sake of compatibility in both languages and it would 
| be better to let the languages go their own separate ways without needing 
| such kludges.)

Yet, both committees have agreed to work together on producing TRs
that tackle issues of interest to both languages.
My own perception, for working on C++ and lurking on C, is that
usually the "two languages should go incompatible" is the motto of a
vocal minority. At any case, I do not see that a productive way the
GCC project should take, for the design of the implementations.

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]