Re: Converting GCC to compilation with C++

[Rogelio M.Serrano Jr. <rogelio at smsglobal dot net>]

On 2004-07-19 07:57:05 +0800 Phil Edwards <phil@codesourcery.com> 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:12:05PM -0300, Nicol?s Lichtmaier wrote:
> > > Since each patch that adds functions is supposed to be reviewed, if
> > > the review process were effective in enforcing coding standards, 
> > > this
> > > couldn't have happened.  I also see dozens of places in the compiler
> > > where line breaks around operators (usually "=") aren't done 
> > > according
> > > to our standards either.
> > >
> > > The existance of these things is a very strong argument against any
> > > claims that "improper" use of C++ would be rejected.
> >
> > Hi, I'm an outsider but... Why not creating a switch which would 
> > trim the 
> > C++ language to a "safe" subset? Then GCC could use this switch, and 
> > many 
> > projects (like Mozilla) could use it as well...
>
> It's been suggested.  See elsewhere in the thread for the kneejerk 
> responses.

Because the switch will eventually disappear. Then everybody starts 
converting everything to c++ and everybody then stops everything and 
wait for the c++ ABI to stabilise. Meanwhile primitive people like me 
forks another gcc like all the nth other primitive peoples fork their 
own. Just so i could continue coding objective-c. Then in my own slice 
of the jungle i convert everything to objective-c and laugh at the 
modern men trying struggle with c++. Why not just convert gcc to 
compile with objective-c? Same reason.

C is neutral and it is alright with the natives.