This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Using C++ in GCC is OK
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> wrote:
> åææ wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> 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
combinations.
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)
Richard.