From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7701 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2003 07:30:25 -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 7694 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 07:30:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thinkpad.c0202001.roe.itnq.net) (217.112.132.138) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 07:30:25 -0000 Received: from karel (helo=localhost) by thinkpad.c0202001.roe.itnq.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18qpom-0005aa-00; Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:29:28 +0100 Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:53:00 -0000 From: Karel Gardas X-X-Sender: karel@thinkpad.c0202001.roe.itnq.net To: Robert Dewar cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end In-Reply-To: <20030305224212.E6A69F2DD7@nile.gnat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00395.txt.bz2 On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Robert Dewar wrote: > > 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. > I agree that some template code might looks unreadable although templates are very usable, on the other hand my main complain of this list was about: - Don't use exceptions. since IIRC Tom requires it for his port of libjava verify.cc to java front-end verify.c Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas kgardas@objectsecurity.com ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com