Re: C++ pushback

[Bill Davidsen]

Gary Poppitz wrote:
> > We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and
> > "struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work
> > with a C++ compiler?
>
>
> I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight.

Possibly, what difference would it make?
> If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have no 
> reason or desire to be on this list.

I only see one temper tantrum, and when you leave there will be none. 
Oh, FORTRAN, PASCAL, and LISP aren't compatible either. And the comments 
are all in English, without subtitles, how can people from other 
cultures ever cope? Answer: nicely, it takes a native speaker of the 
language to really botch the grammar.
> Grow up.

You're whining because the kernel wasn't written for your convenience 
and you tell US to grow up? Someone needs a time out.
--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/