Re: C++ pushback

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Gary Poppitz wrote:
We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and
"struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work
with a C++ compiler?


I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight.

Possibly, what difference would it make?

If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have no reason or desire to be on this list.

I only see one temper tantrum, and when you leave there will be none. Oh, FORTRAN, PASCAL, and LISP aren't compatible either. And the comments are all in English, without subtitles, how can people from other cultures ever cope? Answer: nicely, it takes a native speaker of the language to really botch the grammar.

Grow up.

You're whining because the kernel wasn't written for your convenience and you tell US to grow up? Someone needs a time out.
--
   -bill davidsen ([email protected])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux