lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]
On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
> <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
...
>> I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and
>> straightforward schema language which handles, say, 80% of cases with
>> a fall back to C for the 20% of curly cases. That might actually be
>> simpler to work with in practice than a schema language which can
>> express absolutely anything, at the cost of being awkward for simple
>> cases or difficult to get your head around.
>
> Would C++ work? You can use operating overloading and templates to
> change the syntax into something that doesn't even resemble C any
> more.

From my perspective, that's precisely why C++ should /not/ be used.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-30 19:01    [W:0.127 / U:3.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site