From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932146AbWDYJAp (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:00:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932150AbWDYJAp (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:00:45 -0400 Received: from gateway.argo.co.il ([194.90.79.130]:15880 "EHLO argo2k.argo.co.il") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932146AbWDYJAp (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:00:45 -0400 Message-ID: <444DE539.4000804@argo.co.il> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:00:41 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Mares CC: Xavier Bestel , "J.A. Magallon" , Alan Cox , "Linux-Kernel," Subject: Re: C++ pushback References: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> <444D44F2.8090300@wolfmountaingroup.com> <1145915533.1635.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060425001617.0a536488@werewolf.auna.net> <1145952948.596.130.camel@capoeira> <444DE0F0.8060706@argo.co.il> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2006 09:00:43.0389 (UTC) FILETIME=[BBC50AD0:01C66846] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Martin Mares wrote: > >> That seems to be a case against writing functions. >> >> Why is a C function acceptable where a C++ constructor isn't? >> > > Because examining a single constructor is not enough -- you need to > check constructors of all objects contained within the object you > initialize. > > Calling a C function is simple and explicit -- a quick glance over > the code is enough to tell what gets called. > > No, you need to check all the functions it calls as well. But I agree that C is more explicit than C++. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function