This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Using C++ in GCC is OK
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Steven Bosscher <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Guenther
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> And we definitely should not do so just because we can. ?I see
>> little value in turning our tree upside-down just because we now
>> can use C++ and make everything a class rather than a union.
> If hiding the structure of the data types matters, then 'tree' should
> be re-done as a class, shouldn't it? Otherwise, how are you going to
> get rid of all the accessor macros and static inline functions that
> only half-hide the underlying structures?
Well - if somebody does the work and _completely_ converts
tree and its accessor functions and macros to use a class-based
tree then more power to him. What I do not like to see is
partial conversions to C++.