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

Re: usage of reserved C++-keyword in cthreads.h

Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster@knuut.de> writes:

> > which could even be profitably used for *just this purpose*, and yet,
> > it isn't.  

> There are some mistakes here: the 'extern "C"' declaration is only a hint to 
> the compiler that 

I said the syntax *could* be used to say "this is C syntax", but *it

> No one ever said so. It is just a known fact about and design goal
> of C++ to be able to compile most legal C-programs and make porting
> of the rest a piece of cake. You will nonetheless end up with still
> legal and good C programs afterwards, everybody does it and no two
> are complaining.

Actually, the C++ programmer can do perfectly well by suitable
#defines around their inclusion of the header, to protect the C++
reserved words that are being used as C identifier names.  

> Refusing to support something that is as wide-spread as C++ and as easy to 
> support is not helping anyone.

Oh, but I think it is.  I also don't support visual basic, for similar
reasons.  But C++ programmers *can* include the header, you
know...just do it yourself.

> I personally have just two questions left to you: Do you have the
> power to prevent compatibility to C++ from entering cthreads ?

Probably.  Power to do X and desire to do X are not the same thing.

> Assuming yes, will you do so or will you first take a look at the
> patches ?

I will probably totally ignore them (as I have happily done thus far).
But I'm not the only one who can check in patches.


Reply to: