On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote: >> In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even >> ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up >> with a strange mish-mash of styles for a very long time, which instead >> of helping anyone can only lead to confusion. I don't see anyone >> committing to invest the time in converting even an entire subsystem let >> alone the whole compiler. Maybe a subsystem conversion would be a good >> thing to try on a branch and then present the results to the community >> for evaluation. This would be better than lowering the barrier now for >> all sorts of random but uncoordinated conversion efforts. > > IMO the killer conversion would be vec.[ch], which is a very clever piece of > code but is almost impossible to use without copy-and-pasting existing cases. > I think that a proper C++ implementation would be a very convincing argument.
when you say that, do you mean you would prefer and expect: 1. native C++ style, or 2. you would like the C-style round-about and paraphrasing to remain unperturbed ? The reason I ask is that I expect a "proper" C++ implementation would come with a C++-native style of usage. -- Gaby
