Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have peopleinterested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
> <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
>> I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and
>> straightforward schema language which handles, say, 80% of cases with
>> a fall back to C for the 20% of curly cases.  That might actually be
>> simpler to work with in practice than a schema language which can
>> express absolutely anything, at the cost of being awkward for simple
>> cases or difficult to get your head around.
> 
> Would C++ work? You can use operating overloading and templates to
> change the syntax into something that doesn't even resemble C any
> more.

>From my perspective, that's precisely why C++ should /not/ be used.
--
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/