From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9604 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2007 12:14:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 9595 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2007 12:14:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:14:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3182A9BB1 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 49uAjW5B+982 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B373B2A9AE5 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <468A3DA6.2010806@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:14:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB in C++ References: <200707020721.l627LAR3001590@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <46866F20.2010902@eagercon.com> <20070701205355.GC24316@caradoc.them.org> <200707020721.l627LAR3001590@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <5.2.0.9.1.20070703084716.01a5eec0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.1.20070703084716.01a5eec0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 To me, in this discussion, what is missing is a recognition that this discussion has been carried out before. In order to make a change here, it is not sufficient just to recycle the old familiar arguments. What is needed is to make a case that for some reason, the situation has changed, and so the decision made previously to avoid switching to C++ should be revisited. If all the proponents can do is to reargue the general case, repeating what has been said before, I don't see any basis for changing the previous decision. My own view is that there may be some gain if the resulting style was well policed, but there is a major negative in making the transition, really three negatives: 1. A lot of effort is expended in the transition 2. The transition is bound to cause some instabilities 3. There may be people who just are not comfortable with the language change, and will not contribute as effectively or at all. Of course there may be others who are more inclined to contribute, but this factor needs analysis. What is needed is an argument that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Arguments based solely on the value of the resulting style improvements are inadequate for me unless framed in these terms.