From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18630 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2011 14:42:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 18621 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2011 14:42:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:42:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6PEg9Vx028780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:42:10 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6PEg9jZ005612; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:42:09 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6PEg8jo032529; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:42:08 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Mark Kettenis Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Be in language c more c++ compatible References: <20110715191920.GA29975@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201107231838.p6NIcBDq020651@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201107231838.p6NIcBDq020651@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:38:11 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 Jan> The first (c-exp.y) part parses those parts of `language c++' which cannot Jan> (I believe - RFC) lead to misinterpretation of any valid C code even in Jan> `language c'. Mark> I think this is a bad idea. For the best results, one must also provide reasons why it is a bad idea. Otherwise when looking at the pros and cons, your dislike appears in the cons list as merely a personal dislike -- which while not unimportant certainly carries much less weight than technical arguments. Tom