This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- To: gdr at acm dot org
- Cc: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>, zack at codesourcery dot com, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:29:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- References: <40D994BE.3080208@codesourcery.com> <"37466.::ffff:24.250.169.187.1088004869.squirrel"@webmail.nerim.net>
On Jun 23, 2004, at 8:34 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
So, we don't want C++, we find C too restrictive in the expressive
power it gives us and we end up inventing a new language we
have to learn?
I tend to agree. I think we've already moved too far in the
direction of writing gcc in GTY-C instead of in C. (Why this
is a bad thing: the GTY-C language has syntax that isn't
as well documented as the C language, there is only one
GTY-C compiler and it doesn't give great error messages,
and it's harder to do unit testing of a program written in
GTY-C than one written in C.)
If we think we need a language with class hierarchies but
with a C-like syntax, our compiler already supports two
good choices.
--Matt