Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:01:34 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: C++ pushback |
| |
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)); [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |