Kurt Harriman wrote:
> The foremost opposing argument seems to have been that there
> should be no attempt to alleviate the existing reserved word
> problem without automatic enforcement to guarantee that never
> in the future can new occurrences be introduced.
Is there anything in the source that would necessarily preclude using the
C++ compiler to build *all* the code?
I'd guess that this would be quite a big patch to do this in any places
where we have implicit conversions from void* to char* etc, but
the result is valid as C and C++ and arguably better documented.
C++ is picky about a few things you can do in C, but most of them
are things I'd rather not do anyway.
Run such a build on the build farm each night, and it will be obvious as
soon as C++-unfriendly code sneaks in.
And who know, maybe eventually we could use C++ properly in the
code.
James
