Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)

[Nathan Sidwell]

Richard Kenner wrote:
>      4) Incremental conversion to C++ idioms, where those are prudent.
> 
>     That sounds like rewriting a significant chunk of code in C++ to me. 
> 
> No, this a proposal to *require a C++ compiler*, not to invent a
> language and convert it to C.
what would be the point of requiring a C++ compiler if we were not
then going to start using the language?  I fail to see how
anyone can interpret Paul's understanding of the proposal as
'inventing a language and converting it to C', which is what you
seem to think he's saying, given that you've refuted his comment
as '... not inventing a language ...'.

So far your only point has been that bootstrapping to a virgin system
would be harder. (a) it's hard full stop (b) the ada compiler is in ada
which appears to be a more complicated language than C++, and it manages
to do such bootstraps.

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk