On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:37:47AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:06 PM Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Rename > > struct notifier_block *this > > to > > struct notifier_block *nb > > > > "nb" is arguably a better name for notifier block. > > Maybe it's a better name. But it doesn't seem worth it. > > Because C++ reserved words are entirely irrelevant. > > We did this same dance almost three decades ago, and the fact is, C++ > has other reserved words that make it all pointless. The real problems are "class" and "new" indeed. > There is no way I will accept the renaming of various "new" variables. I'm not sending "new". > We did it, it was bad, we undid it, and we now have a _lot_ more uses > of 'new' and 'old', and no, we're not changing it for a braindead > language that isn't relevant to the kernel. > > The fact is, C++ chose bad identifiers to make reserved words. > > If you want to build the kernel with C++, you'd be a lot better off just doing > > /* C++ braindamage */ > #define this __this > #define new __new > > and deal with that instead. Can't do this because of placement new. > Because no, the 'new' renaming will never happen, and while 'this' > isn't nearly as common or relevant a name, once you have the same > issue with 'new', what's the point of trying to deal with 'this'? I'm not sending "new". There is stuff which can be merge without breaking source compatibility and readability of C version: private => priv virtual => virt this => self (in some contexts) and those which can not. I'm not sending the latter.
