From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54162) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7lVo-0002hl-Gk for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:18:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7lVh-0000rp-Jo for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:18:48 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37240 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7lVh-0000rS-Db for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:18:41 -0400 Message-ID: <558ABC3F.90002@suse.de> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:18:39 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <803004FB-2F23-439C-AF59-E71FA7DDC2C4@livius.net> <55893750.3020502@suse.de> <55896C57.6060904@suse.de> <5B7FDD61-18AF-4024-9254-7B96582540E9@livius.net> <5EDCF9DC-453A-435C-9379-DE250716BA0F@livius.net> <04BD2F65-DACC-4865-9C16-2936F84220FD@livius.net> <558AB5B3.7080005@suse.de> <3C3A3D3D-F576-43A9-B1A8-1D4D27CF315B@livius.net> In-Reply-To: <3C3A3D3D-F576-43A9-B1A8-1D4D27CF315B@livius.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QDev explicit constructors & destructors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Liviu Ionescu Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Peter Crosthwaite , QEMU Developers Am 24.06.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Liviu Ionescu: > On 24 Jun 2015, at 16:50, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: >=20 >> You're still doing the {...} thing I asked you not to do. >=20 > thank you for your suggestions. It's not a suggestion. Our Coding Style is a mandatory requirement for code review. I already pointed out that it affects readability for those accustomed to our Coding Style. Instead of you arguing over it I expected you to acknowledge it and to adapt your code. > right now I'm more concerned on which APIs to use, and my current under= standing is that you prefer direct QOM calls over QDev, which are depreca= ted. is this correct? >=20 > regarding the layout of my code, I did not make a final decision yet, b= ut it might very well be C++, with some wrappers over your QOM objects. First, they're not "my" QOM objects. I did not invent it. Second, we are certainly not going to let every contributor, especially not new ones, make their own choices of programming language inside our code base. QOM was not just a transitory tool, some people here (not me) were and are against C++, which currently is optional for AArch64 disassembler. Regards, Andreas --=20 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imend=F6rffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG N=FCrnberg)