Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:02:08 +1100 From: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> To: Bruce Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: weeding out c++ keywords from sys/sys Message-ID: <20090216060208.GB70145@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <49983868.5010107@incunabulum.net> References: <4995BB1B.7060201@icyb.net.ua> <20090213231513.GA20223@duncan.reilly.home> <4997F105.5020409@icyb.net.ua> <499811DF.6030905@incunabulum.net> <20090215151318.0d17bfb9@ernst.jennejohn.org> <49983868.5010107@incunabulum.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 03:44:40PM +0000, Bruce Simpson wrote: > I wonder if many of the objections raised against C++ have actually been > considered in the light of the new C++0x spec. Has that been released yet? I thought it was still being worked-on. > At the moment, there are several projects out there which don't even > involve C++ in the *kernel*, which are directly impacted by the issues > which Andriy is attempting to solve because they use the system headers; > I therefore fully support what he is doing, as he is saving people a lot > of hassle. Me too. That's precicely why I didn't object to that work. I certainly don't consider myself to be an objector, and I hope that my comments weren't taken as such. > It's time to get real, and admit that C++ is a very powerful tool that, > whilst it can be misused in untrained hands, can be very powerful in > skillful hands. Just because something isn't to one's personal tastes, > doesn't mean it should be regarded as anathema or mandatory, IMHO. It's the "mandatory" that does worry me a little. Once the cammel has his nose inside the tent... everyone will want one. Cheers, Andrew.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090216060208.GB70145>