[RFC] type safe trees

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

You Wrote Richard Kenner
>     But this lets you schedule native bootstrapping further down the
> chain,
>     at which point you need to have all languages working _anyway_!
> Unless
>     "for development" you mean "just C".
>
> Well, you have to start someplace.  And it's harder to first bootstrap
> a C++ compiler than a C compiler simply because it's a more complex
> language.

It is probably harder to first bootstrap a C++ compiler that
support full ISO C++; but the proposal wasn't to use full C++.
In fact, I maintain it is hardly harder to bootstrap the subset
of C++ that appeared in TC++PL1 than C90.