Re: C++ pushback

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>]

On Wed, 2006-04-26 12:25:19 -0700, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
[Variable names that are reserved in C++]
> 	And, FWIW, it isn't even necessary to change those names. That is only
> needed to compile the kernel in C++, which is not what anyone was talking
> about. Supporting C++ modules, for example, would work fine even if the
> kernel had variables called 'class' or 'private'. (Though things could be
> done a lot more cleanly if it didn't as it would require some remapping
> before and after compilation.)

There's one _practical_ thing you need to keep in mind: you'll either
need 'C++'-clean kernel headers (to interface low-level kernel
functions) or a separate set of headers.

For separate headers, I see the problem of keeping them synchronized
with the kernel. The clean-up-kernel-headers-for-userspce-consumption
guys already took that bullet once and up to now, there's no "real"
result. (That's while we all know that kernel values *are* somewhat
for the userspace guys:-)  I see an even smaller user-base for
separate C++ kernel headers (and thus more work per person)--and I
think that the current in-kernel headers just won't be C++ compatible,
ever[*].

MfG, JBG
[*] Famous last words...

-- 
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));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature