Re: [PATCH 00/37] removal of some c++ keywords

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

 



Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Is it simpler (though hacky) to just  do
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> #define new not_new
> #define try really_try
> ...
>
> somewhere in git-compat-util.h?

Very tempting, especially given that your approach automatically
would cover topics in flight without any merge conflict ;-)

I agree that it is hacky and somewhat ugly, but the hackiness
somehow does not bother me too much in this case; perhaps because
attempting to use a C++ compiler may already be hacky in the first
place?

It probably depends on the reason why we are doing this topic.  If a
report about our source code coming from the C++ oriented tool cite
the symbol names seen by machines, then the "hacky" approach will
give us "not_new" where Brandon's patch may give us "new_oid", or
whatever symbol that is more appropriate for the context it appears
than such an automated cute name.

> Do we use any C features that are incompatible with C++? (or do we not
> need to care?)

Good question.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux