Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:30:45 -0600 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] |
| |
On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson > <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: ... >> I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and >> straightforward schema language which handles, say, 80% of cases with >> a fall back to C for the 20% of curly cases. That might actually be >> simpler to work with in practice than a schema language which can >> express absolutely anything, at the cost of being awkward for simple >> cases or difficult to get your head around. > > Would C++ work? You can use operating overloading and templates to > change the syntax into something that doesn't even resemble C any > more.
From my perspective, that's precisely why C++ should /not/ be used.
| |