From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31499 invoked by alias); 24 May 2005 07:43:10 -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 31487 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2005 07:43:06 -0000 Received: from smtp-102-tuesday.noc.nerim.net (HELO mallaury.noc.nerim.net) (62.4.17.102) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 07:43:05 +0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (gdr.net1.nerim.net [62.212.99.186]) by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D439D62D12; Tue, 24 May 2005 09:43:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j4O8rgLv018030; Tue, 24 May 2005 10:53:42 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j4O8rgTw018029; Tue, 24 May 2005 10:53:42 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jason@redhat.com, dberlin@dberlin.org Subject: Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report References: <1116907280.9577.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050524035919.GA23335@nevyn.them.org> <87fywdkvmp.fsf@codesourcery.com> <4292C5FF.2060003@codesourcery.com> <873bsdkuhj.fsf@codesourcery.com> <87u0ktjdo5.fsf@codesourcery.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <87u0ktjdo5.fsf@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg01295.txt.bz2 Zack Weinberg writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis writes: | | > But we do not get any expressive power by using C++ keywords. | | Readability, readability, readability. | | (for instance, 'class' vs. 'klass' When replacing "class" with a new identifier, "klass" it not the only choice. Therefore, it does not appear that you have exhibited any loss of readability. You have just suggested a worst choise, but it is not the only one we have. [...] | > | (And I'd be less grumpy about coding to the intersection of C and | > | C++ if someone coded up warnings for the C compiler to catch | > | things outside the intersection.) | > | > Consider that to be a follow-up that I'm willing to do, if these | > preliminary patches are in. | | Thank you, I appreciate that. So, were do we stand? Notice again that none of the changes are outside our existing coding conventions. -- Gaby