This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: phil at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 04 22:26:03 EDT
- Subject: Re: [RFC] type safe trees
Can we all agree to just flat kill that stupid nonsense? It's a causal
(not "casual") form of the slippy-slope argument, which is typically wrong.
It implies that nobody would /notice/ if other facets of the language
suddenly appeared in the compiler sources. It implies that we can't use
any part of C++ without using all of it, which any decent C++ programmer
should find a little insulting, as the language was expressly designed to
support using only parts of it.
That's not where I see the "slippery slope" argument. I don't see the
concern as one of sloppy programmers not noticing they were violating the
subset, but that once the big step was taken to use C++ in the first place,
we could *consciously* increase the size of the subset from time to time and
soon enough it wouldn't be much of subset anymore.
So I *do* think that we need to be extraordinarily careful before we
take the first step here because it's likely we'll have much less trouble
taking the subsequent ones.