Re: C++ in the kernel

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Erik Wikström wrote:
> On 2009-01-06 00:48, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> > Erik Wikström wrote:
> > > On 2009-01-05 15:02, B. Estrade wrote:
>
> > > > Is the current code bad or something? What exactly is the problem that
> > > > can be "solved" with C++? 
> > > Actually I think the current code is quote good, at least the part's of
> > > it that have been changed the last decade or so. And there is no problem
> > > that can't be solved in C (or Fortran or Ada) that can't be solved in
> > > C++. But fact is that many parts of the kernel uses object oriented
> > > programming, but C does not have support for this at the language level
> > > and C++ does. It is also a fact that current code uses macros to create
> > > generic types (such as lists and queues) and once again this is
> > > something that C++ has language level support for.
> > I'd like to see a non-ugly template implementation that can be used like 
> > our current queue.h/tree.h macros.  I don't like C++, but I'd be 
> > positively surprised it this could be solved elegantly.
>
> I'm not familiar with the queue.h/tree.h macros and what purpose they
> serve. A quick look tells me that queue.h gives some macros to create
> intrusive lists and queues. Are they intrusive by choice or by
> necessity, does the list own objects in it or are they owned by other
> structs?

objects can possibly part of multiple lists at the same time.  objects are 
not necessarily owned by the list - whatever "owned" might be.  I don't 
know what you mean with intrusive.

cheers
  simon

--
  <3 the future  +++  RENT this banner advert  +++   ASCII Ribbon   /"\
  rock the past  +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++     Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \