This is the mail archive of the 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: Using C++ in GCC is OK

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Robert Dewar <> wrote:
> åææ wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Robert Dewar <> wrote:
>>> It's a pity to exclude namespaces, the advantage of breaking the
>>> single-big-namespace model are evident.
>> Yes, the advantage of namespace is obvious.
>> But, I think namespace is just a syntax sugar. You can name your
>> variables, functions, classes properly Âto Â"avoid" it.
> All of OO is just syntactic sugar :-)
> You can mimic anything in C, the point is that it obscures the
> code, this kind of naming obscures the code, so it is better
> avoided.

Indeed.  Like the funny names you start to invent when you
have wrappers that allow different kind of argument types for
a common worker.  Like building a points-to constraint in
tree-ssa-structalias.c, those have two args which technically
can be either of type int, of type varinfo_t or of type
struct constraint_expr ...  The most convenient variant
would be auto-conversion to struct constraint_expr, but even
an explicit constructor call would be ok.  Or simply
use function overloading for a sub-set of all argument type

The same applies to functions operating on HWI vs.
double-int vs. tree integer constants vs. RTL integer constants.
Where at that point the question is whether we want to
allow operator overloading.  (No would be my answer)


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