From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24227 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 16:39:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 24214 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 16:39:43 -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; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:39:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A792A96D2; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:39:22 -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 TRWbNrAllKvv; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:39:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49DB2A9620; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <487B8139.9030803@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:39:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Prus CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807141953.31008.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <487B78B9.2090206@adacore.com> <200807142023.04952.vladimir@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200807142023.04952.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 Vladimir Prus wrote: > I think you're falling into a trap common for planning large transitions. > It seems reasonable to prepare of list of points, and compare alternatives > on each point. However, I never saw this work, I have seen it work many times, and managed several transitions of this type ... > Most transitions I saw involved: > 1. A few folks pushing for specific solution that improves on the current > status quo. > 2. Other folks expressing opinions like "we absolutely need XXX" Sounds like they were badly mismanaged > > So, here, what are your most important concerns? Do you see those concerns can > be mitigated, or not? > The problem is the book named "The C++ Programming Language" went through at > least 3 revisions, presumably with extra help of professional editors. Do we want > to beat that? And why newcomers who already read this book should read the > documentation for our non-standard mechanisms. Well I don't know the code well enough, but what exactly do you mean by non-standard here---not conforming to the C standard??? The GDB code I *have* looked at all seems like fairly standard C to me! > > - Volodya