On 5/29/12, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > > people actually working on it and used to that style. > > > We don't want to have a mixture of several different styles in > > > the compiler. I (and I expect many others) don't want anyone > > > working around the latter by going over the whole source base > > > and reindent everything. Hence inventing a new coding standard > > > for GCC-in-C++ (by reusing existing ones or doing something > > > new) that isn't mostly the same as GCC-in-C isn't going to fly. > > > > if this coding standard is going to be adopted as a GNU coding > > convention, then you have to be flexible and allow yourself > > to see beyond the past written in C. You have to ask yourself: > > how do I want the codebase to look like in 10, 15, 20, 25 years. > > ... And thanks for making clear what the whole GCC-in-c++ stunt > is about. ( ... ) Namely useless noise and source change activity > for the sake of it.
The conversion to C++ is not a stunt. It is an attempt to reduce the cost of developing GCC and to ease the path for more developers to contribute. I believe progress on those goals is necessary to the long-term health of GCC. Do you wish to see progress to those goals? If so, what you have us do differently? We need a coding standard for C++ if we are to use C++. A whole new coding standard would be disruptive, and so the proposals on the table are incremental changes to the existing C conventions. There have been discussions about potential future changes, more in line with industry practice, but they are not present proposals. That activity is part of the construction work. Any construction work is always going to have a few "pardon the inconvenience" signs. If there is anything we can do to reduce that, but still make progress, please let us know. -- Lawrence Crowl
