From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751313AbWDXViy (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:38:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751336AbWDXViy (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:38:54 -0400 Received: from spooner.celestial.com ([192.136.111.35]:38549 "EHLO spooner.celestial.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751334AbWDXVix (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:38:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:38:52 -0400 From: Kurt Wall To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: C++ pushback Message-ID: <20060424213852.GA9695@kurtwerks.com> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.17-rc2krw X-Woot: Woot! Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 02:02:27PM -0600, Gary Poppitz took 17 lines to write: > >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. If you can see it was intentional, I'm baffled why it didn't occur to you to do some simple research before posting or even trouble yourself to ask "Why?" on LKML. > If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have > no reason or desire to be on this list. If there is an unwillingness to learn the ground rules and conventions of the group you want to join, then the group has no reason nor desire to have you join. > Grow up. Bye now. Kurt -- Wit, n.: The salt with which the American Humorist spoils his cookery ... by leaving it out. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"