Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:55:55 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: C++ pushback |
| |
On Wed, 2006-04-26 18:00:52 -0500, Roman Kononov <kononov195-far@yahoo.com> wrote: > Statement expressions are working fine in g++. The main difficulties are: > - GCC's structure member initialization extensions are syntax > errors in G++: struct foo_t foo={.member=0};
Erm, you may want to read the current C standard (C99). This isn't an extension, it's standard.
There's a reason why C++ doesn't support that (yet): C++ is a fork of C90 (IIRC), so everything that evolved in C during the years is still missing from C++.
> > Anyway, it should all be doable. Not necessarily even very hard. But I > > doubt it's worth it. > > I think that allowing C++ code to co-exist with the kernel would be a > step forward.
You can do with your code whatever you want to:) I think it's just a matter of practice: If C++ code shows up that is less error-prone than C code, doesn't use unverifyable amounts of stack space during constructor runs and is basically _superior_ to C code, that'll find its way into the kernel. But if it's only as good as the C code, then why should anybody bother implementing the neccessary stuff to link C++ code (and to initialize it properly?)
MfG, JBG
-- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |