From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10111 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2003 22:42:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10101 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 22:42:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 22:42:13 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id E6A69F2DD7; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:42:12 -0500 (EST) To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kgardas@objectsecurity.com Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Message-Id: <20030305224212.E6A69F2DD7@nile.gnat.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:03:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 > First five points on this list look quite restrictive Well "quite restrictive" is not necessarily a bad thing. In particular I would certainly favor a rule forbidding the use of templates, because the use of templates can so easily get out of hand. Perhaps someone who knows C++ better than I do can formulate rules to prevent misuse of templates, but I often see C++ code where the authors seem completely fearless when it comes to using the language in a very complex unreadable manner. If we let that kind of code in, we are behind, not ahead of the current state of things.